Page 2584 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 25 September 2007

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .


Annual Report

Reporting area

Ministerial Portfolio

Standing Committee

Department of Treasury

Treasurer

Public Accounts

Director of Public Prosecutions

Attorney-General

Legal Affairs

Exhibition Park Corporation

Treasurer

Public Accounts

Gambling and Racing Commission

Treasurer

Public Accounts

Human Rights Commission

Attorney-General

Legal Affairs

Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission

Attorney-General

Legal Affairs

Legal Aid Commission ACT

Attorney-General

Legal Affairs

Nominal Defendant for the ACT

Treasurer

Public Accounts

Public Advocate of the ACT

Attorney-General

Legal Affairs

Public Trustee for the ACT

Attorney-General

Legal Affairs

Rhodium Asset Solutions

Treasurer

Public Accounts

Victims of Crime Coordinator

Attorney-General

Legal Affairs

Legal Profession Amendment Bill 2007

Debate resumed from 30 August 2007, on motion by Mr Corbell:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (10.56): The Legal Profession Amendment Bill is an important piece of legislation for the ACT, in part because it embraces a national model. It adopts a national approach that achieves uniformity and certainty for the legal profession and, more importantly, clients of the legal profession.

This national model has been developed over a considerable period by the National Legal Profession Model Laws Joint Working Party, in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. In the ACT, these stakeholders have included the ACT Law Society and the Bar Association, who, in this process, have probably been the most proactive stakeholders in the nation. Many of the amendments respond to concerns raised by law societies, bar associations and the Law Council of Australia about protection given to clients, practitioners and other people who may be affected by the operation of the legislation.

Costs disclosure and trust account provisions, in particular, underwent significant review. For example, and subject to a 30-day limit, clients not classed as “sophisticated” clients now can request a higher level of accountability from their lawyers through the provision of itemised bills once the bill exceeds a regulated


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .