Reid Mortensen

Australia: The Twain (and Only the Twain) Meet—The Demise of the Legal Profession National Law

In 2011, Linda Haller reported in Legal Ethics on proposals for national regulation of the legal profession in Australia. In common with other English-speaking federations, the legal profession in Australia is organised on a sub-national basis: in Australias case, there are separate professions (and some divided) in eight States and Territories. The federal Parliament has no power that would enable it to settle one scheme of regulation for lawyers across the country. However, the Australian federation had actually secured a high degree of harmonisation in the Model Laws on National Legal Practice (Model Laws), which all Australian jurisdictions, apart from South Australia, implemented between 2004 and 2008. The Model Laws set a similar structure for the regulation of lawyers, but within that structure allowed significant variations from State to State. As a result, large national law firms, in particular, wanted complete uniformity across the States and Territories, and to have regulatory powers exercised by national regulators. In 2009, the development of a Legal Profession National Law (National Law) was therefore entrusted to a national Taskforce chaired by Roger Wilkins, Secretary of the federal Attorney-Generals Department, and a Consultative Committee chaired by former federal Attorney-General Michael Lavarch. The executive government leanings of the whole project would soon become apparent. Still, when Dr Haller wrote in 2011, the three most populous States (New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland) and the least populous Territory (the Northern Territory) had agreed to participate in the National Law: a scheme of national regulation that would embrace 85 per cent of Australias lawyers.

Integrity in Legal Practice: A Report from the Third International Legal Ethics Conference, Gold Coast, Australia

The International Legal Ethics Conference (ILEC3) was held at the Sheraton Mirage Hotel on the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia from 13 to 16 July 2008. This was the third ILEC. The first was held at the University of Exeter, England, in 2004; and the second at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, in 2006.1 A colloquium associated with this series was also held at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2005. ILEC3 was co-hosted by the Law Schools at Griffith University, Gold Coast, and The University of Queensland, Brisbane. As two of the organisers, we were greatly encouraged by the continued enthusiasm and support of those who had attended ILEC1 and ILEC2, and that the series is growing in both the breadth and the depth of support it is receiving from legal ethics scholars. ILEC3 attracted 165 delegates; 107 academics, professional regulators and practising lawyers contributed papers. The international strength of the conference was reinforced by the representation of contributors from Australia, Canada, England, Hong Kong, Japan, Kenya, New Zealand, Scotland and the United States. Although the series has always featured American speakers, delegates have tended to come from Commonwealth countries. A particularly promising feature of ILEC3 was the large number of scholars from the United States who attended and participated, some contributing two or three papers. Especially given the prominence of American work in the field, this bodes well for positioning the specialist ILEC series at the centre of legal ethics scholarship. It is a unique opportunity for international scholarly exchange in the field.

How many chief justices? Judicial appointments and ethics in Queensland

ABSTRACT Australia has recently experienced what many regard as its greatest judicial crisis. The appointment of Timothy Carmody QC as Chief Justice of Queensland in 2014 emerged from a process that was tainted by the state government’s willingness to break confidences gained in the course of consultation for the appointment. Equally, a strongly negative and heterodox reaction to the appointment by the whole Queensland Supreme Court bench meant that, together, politicians and judges brought on a collapse of the traditional ethics surrounding judicial appointments. Nevertheless, the extreme circumstances of the Carmody affair suggest that, where judges have a legitimate concern that a judicial appointment might put a fundamental constitutional value like judicial independence at risk, a court may be justified in publically expressing concern about the appointment.

Legal Ethics at a Time of Regulatory Change: The Sixth International Legal Ethics Conference, London

The International Legal Ethics Conference (ILEC) returned to England in 2014, with the Sixth ILEC being held at City University, London from 10–12 July. ILEC is a regular biennial event; earlier conferences in the series having been held in Exeter, England (2004); Auckland, New Zealand (2006); Gold Coast, Australia (2008); Stanford University, (USA (2010); Banff, Canada (2012). ILEC has always had a close association with this journal, and since Stanford it has been organised under the auspices of the International Association of Legal Ethics.