G Dal Pont

Mandating lawyer reporting of their peers' misconduct: should Australia follow suit?

Driven by both judicial determination and legislative change, there is nowadays in Australia a greater focus on the ‘good fame and character’ requirement that has historically been requisite to admission. Yet at the admission stage, there remains no proactive investigation into good fame and character; any such inquiry rests heavily upon the disclosure of matters relevant to the admission decision. Though upon disclosure of potentially inculpatory information the modern response may be more severe than in the past, the process nonetheless remains a reactive rather than a proactive one. Parallel observations ring true at the professional disciplinary pole. The disciplinary process is premised heavily on reactivity. Aside from the periodic examination of trust accounts imposed by statute (and a corresponding obligation on an external examiner to report trust accounting breaches or irregularities to the requisite body), relevant regulatory