The presidents of the South Australian and West Australian law societies have hit back at claims by the Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland that the arrival of Clifford Chance in Perth increases the need for the WA legal profession to join the proposed national regulatory system for the legal profession. “I completely disagree with those comments by Attorney-General Robert McClelland,” said Hylton Quail, president of the WA Law Society.

McClelland had told News Limited that the presence in WA of Allen & Overy and Clifford Chance underlined the need for the West Australian profession to be part of a national system. Western Australia is considering the use of mirror legislation in lieu of joining the national scheme while South Australia is also understood to be exploring its options.

However, Quail said that there was no need for WA to follow suit as the last round of regime harmonisation had already resulted in a system that makes it relatively easy for practitioners from other states to practice in WA. According to Quail, the majority of legal practice done in WA is local. “Yes, there are some new international firms coming into the market, but they have entered even though we have been up front about our problems with the national regime,” he added.

Both Quail and his SA counterpart Ralph Bӧnig said that cost and the loss of state sovereignty were the two main issues with the current proposal. “It is vital that the admissions and disciplinary controls remain with the state authority, and we want to ensure that our [practicing] costs do not increase,” said Quail. Bӧnig added: “There are two aspects to the costs issue, firstly, the cost of setting up the board. Secondly, the ongoing cost of firms meeting the imposed regulatory burden. Both the taskforce and the Law Council of Australia never produced adequate costings of how much that would cost.”

In October 2010 the taskforce indicated that the cost of the proposed national board would be funded by a levy on all new admittees in the order of A$750 per admittee, in addition to their state-based fees. “We cannot stand by and see the most vulnerable of our profession, our new admittees, shouldering the burden of the cost of a new national regime,” said Bӧnig.

Both WA and SA have agreed to look at implementing the regulatory regime if these concerns are addressed. “We are working with them to implement a mirror legislation and persevere with state sovereignty; but otherwise it will be very close to what will be put through the rest of the country,” said Quail.

Related stories:
Legal bodies add to debate on national reform 2 February 2011

LLFG calls for more consultation on national legal reform 27 January 2011