Page 5076 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
One of the advantages of these amendments is that, by limiting the compensatory calls on the society and the association, it provides more protection to the funds of those groups. In doing so, it provides the Law Society, in particular, with more scope to fund its legal services activities. I note from the explanatory statement that similar provisions operate satisfactorily in Queensland and also that, upon my inquiry, the ACT Law Society and the ACT Bar Association support the amendments. These are sensible amendments that close a hole that currently exists in the legislation, and the Canberra Liberals are pleased to support it.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.19): The Greens will be supporting this bill, which amends the Legal Profession Act. The bill makes changes to improve the regulation of the legal profession in the ACT. Regulation of the legal profession is an important aspect of the justice system, and any move to improve its operation deserves support. A well-regulated legal industry benefits both individual consumers of legal services and the community more broadly.
Consumers of legal services are really just people who need help to resolve a dispute. Unfortunately, there will be people who are not well served by their lawyers and get bad advice or poor representation. For these individuals, it is important that they have a body to lodge a complaint with. These people were in a difficult position, needed legal assistance and were perhaps let down. That body needs the power to investigate the complaint and, if appropriate, discipline the lawyer involved.
The broader community is also well served by good regulation of the legal profession. Lawyers are officers of the court and, as a result, reflect on the justice system. A lawyer who acts unprofessionally reflects badly on other lawyers and the justice system as a whole. By the same token, public confidence in the legal system is boosted where unprofessional conduct is picked up and investigated.
In Australia, debate continues around the best model for regulating the legal profession. The argument is one of self-regulation versus government regulation. Historically, the legal profession has been self-regulated, with law societies hearing complaints and disciplining lawyers. Some argue that self-regulation is inappropriate in modern times and that regulation and discipline need to be handed out by an independent body. The alternative is government regulation where officers of the government investigate the legal profession and make disciplinary decisions. There are arguments both ways, and whilst today is not the day to debate that question, I am sure the discussion on these sorts of matters will continue.
The amendments we are debating today improve the system the ACT has, and they deserve support on that basis. In the ACT, the legal profession is partly self-regulated. It represents a mix of both the self-regulation and government regulation models. Where there is suspected misconduct by a lawyer, the ACT Law Society appoints an investigator. The appointed investigator has certain powers that include right of entry to premises containing relevant information. After concluding their work, the investigator reports to the Law Society on their findings. The Law Society then has limited power to fine a lawyer for unsatisfactory conduct. Alternatively, for more serious cases of professional misconduct, the Law Society can apply to ACAT for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video