Overview

In August 2025, the Standing Committee on Public Administration of the Western Australian Legislative Council commenced an inquiry into the operation and effectiveness of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia (LPB). By 19 September 2025, the Committee had received public submissions from 12 organisational stakeholders and a detailed joint submission from five peak legal bodies, supplemented by 96 individual practitioner feedback responses, nine detailed case studies and extensive documentary annexures. Collectively, these submissions allege a pattern of systemic regulatory failure across the LPB’s core functions: practising certificate administration, complaints and disciplinary processes, Continuing Professional Development (CPD) regulation, financial management, governance and communication.

This report identifies and catalogues the specific allegations made in all public submissions,^[1] organises them thematically and attributes them to their sources. The submissions include the Joint Submission of five organisations (Association of Corporate Counsel WA Division, Community Legal WA, the Law Society of Western Australia, the Piddington Society and Women Lawyers of Western Australia), together with individual submissions from the Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA), Community Legal WA (CLWA), the Family Law Practitioners’ Association of WA (FLPA), Legal Aid WA, Law Firms Australia (LFA), the Legal Services Council, Law Mutual WA, the Piddington Society, the WA Bar Association, Women Lawyers of WA (WLWA) and the District Court of Western Australia. The LPB itself also provided a responsive submission.

It is noteworthy that Russell Daily—a central figure in the Western Australian Legal Services Board’s alleged persistent and malicious abuse of authority, which culminated in the parliamentary inquiry—commenced his regulatory leadership career at the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner’s Office (VLSB+C), where he worked for 10 years and rose to the position of Legal Services Commissioner before abruptly ceasing work following multiple allegations of serious corrupt conduct.

Ironically, at the time of his appointment with the LPB, the organisation issued the following media release^[2] on 10 January 2020:

“The Chair of the Legal Practice Board has great pleasure in announcing that following an extensive process, the Board has appointed Russell Daily as the Law Complaints Officer, starting on 10 February 2020.

Originally from Western Australia, Russell brings a wealth of relevant legal experience, having worked at the Victorian Legal Services Board + Commission for the past 10 years, holding the position of Director of Investigations, and having acted as the Legal Services Commissioner and CEO.

The Chair believes the appointment is an excellent fit for the Legal Profession Complaints Committee, and well-suited to lead in Western Australia’s legal profession regulatory bodies.”

A core purpose of this report is to highlight the significant overlap between the patterns of misconduct alleged against the LPB—now the subject of a parliamentary inquiry—and those alleged against the VLSB+C, as evidenced by hundreds of complaints lodged by lawyers and legal services consumers with oversight bodies and courts, many of which have been discussed in our previous publications.

Read:

Governance and Board Composition

Unrepresentative Board Composition

The Joint Submission and the WLWA submission allege that the Board’s composition is fundamentally unrepresentative of the profession it regulates. Although solicitors comprise 96% of practising lawyers in Western Australia, only 18% of Board members are solicitors and 82% are barristers. Of the 48 Board members (including ex officio members), 75% are men and 25% are women, despite women representing 56% of solicitors in WA. Among the 34 Senior Counsel members (the “silks”)—who constitute 70% of the Board and are non-elected—85% are men.

No Board members are appointed on the basis of merit, skill set, expertise, or demonstrated commitment to public protection. All are appointed either ex officio or by popular election, with silks automatically qualifying by virtue of their appointment as Senior Counsel. The Joint Submission characterises this governance structure as a “relic” of the pre-Uniform Law regime and as inconsistent with the Public Sector Commission’s governance principles for WA government boards and committees, which require diversity and expertise.

Inadequate Governance Mechanisms

​​The Board convened 11 times in 2023–24, but only 2 of those occasions involved an in-person or virtual meeting; the remaining 9 were conducted as “meetings by resolution without meeting.” This raises concerns that significant decisions may be made without adequate deliberation or debate. The delegation structure from the Board to its committees—and from those committees to the Legal Services and Complaints Officer (LSCO) and staff—is opaque, with no clear, publicly available information about reporting lines, oversight mechanisms, or accountability.

The FLPA submission further alleges that committee decision-making is often not independent. Individuals may sit on both the Legal Profession Complaints Committee (now LSCC) and the Professional Affairs Committee (PAC) during investigations concerning the same practitioner, thereby compromising the independence of those processes.

Lack of Board Oversight of Staff

Multiple submissions allege that employees of the Board and its subcommittees are not being properly supervised. WLWA reports that the tenor of communications and the decisions made by employees strongly suggest a lack of oversight and proper supervision, noting that the governance, delegation, and supervision arrangements cannot be determined externally from the information currently available. The Joint Submission records unverified concerns that the Executive Director is not subject to annual performance reviews, has not been set KPIs, and is not subject to periodic contract review based on organisational performance.

Financial Management

Excessive and Unexplained Financial Reserves

The Joint Submission identifies persistent growth in the LPB’s financial reserves, which now exceed $12.5 million in equity, with total combined cash and term deposits of more than $22 million. The LPB consistently adds between $1 million and $2 million per year to its equity holdings, driven by annual profits of approximately $800,000 to $1.77 million in recent financial years.

This accumulation of reserves has occurred despite the Board having no profit-making purpose or remit. In comparable jurisdictions, regulators that end the year in surplus are required to return that surplus to the profession through reduced fees or to provide an explanation. No such transparency is apparent from the LPB. The Board’s special‑purpose financial statements further limit external scrutiny.

Disproportionate Practising Certificate Fees

Western Australia has the highest practising certificate fees in Australia among jurisdictions where practising fees and law society membership are separate. A non‑principal solicitor in WA pays $1,250, compared with $490–$745 in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia. No discount is offered for community legal service (CLS) lawyers, despite CLS practitioners earning significantly less than their counterparts in government and private practice. CLWA estimates the annual cost of practising certificates for its 379 lawyers at $473,750—equivalent to 3.63% of total State Government baseline funding for community legal services.

CLWA has been seeking a fee rebate or a more equitable fee structure since 2005. Multiple other jurisdictions offer discounts for CLS lawyers; WA’s only concession is a 50% discount for government lawyers.

Unexplained Doubling of Expense Reimbursements

The Joint Submission notes that the LPB’s 2023–24 financial statements show a near-doubling of income from expense reimbursement—from $445,112 in 2022–23 to $962,325 in 2023–24—with no public explanation of what these expenses relate to, who reimbursed them, or why they doubled.

Operational Effectiveness: Practising Certificates

Chronic Delays in Issuing Practising Certificates

The most widely reported allegation across submissions is the LPB’s chronic delay in issuing practising certificates. The Joint Submission, supported by 96 individual practitioner responses, records that it is “commonplace” for certificates not to be issued for months into the new practising year (which commences on 1 July), with some practitioners in 2023–24 not receiving certificates until November or December 2024.

LFA confirms that in 2022–23, some practitioners did not receive certificates until December 2023 or later; in 2024–25, some did not receive them until September 2024; and, as of late August 2025, some had still not received their 2025–26 certificates. The FLPA similarly reports that, in 2024–25, the re‑issue of practising certificates continued until November 2024, five months into the new practising year.

The District Court of Western Australia, in its two‑page submission dated 22 August 2025, also draws attention to serious administrative delays affecting practitioners’ capacity to appear and conduct matters in the Court, including late renewal of practising certificates and uncertainty over the status of some practitioners at the bar table.

Consequences for Practitioners

The consequences of delays are not merely administrative. The Joint Submission identifies the following impacts:

• Practitioners applying for new certificates (rather than renewals) cannot begin providing legal services at all, causing financial hardship to them and their employers.
• Practitioners may unknowingly be practising unlawfully if there is a defect in their application that they cannot detect due to the Board’s delay, exposing them to disciplinary proceedings and an obligation to refund all fees earned during the period.
• Third-party platforms (e.g., PEXA for digital property settlements) require a current practising certificate; inability to produce one prevents lawyers from settling clients’ transactions.
• Practitioners have been unable to refinance home loans, take up new employment, obtain promotions, or receive employer reimbursement for fees without a current certificate.

Law Mutual WA provides seven specific case studies of practitioners impacted by delays, including: a practitioner undergoing cancer treatment unable to renew due to system failures; a practitioner waiting over eight months post-maternity leave for a condition to be removed; a sole practitioner who gave up opening a criminal law practice in a regional area; and a Kimberley-based practitioner who revoked her application entirely after months of waiting.

The District Court submission notes that such uncertainty can cause adjournments and inefficiencies in criminal and civil lists where representation is suddenly withdrawn or cannot be confirmed, with consequent disruption for litigants, witnesses and jurors.

Erroneous Conditions Imposed on Certificates

Multiple submissions report the erroneous imposition of CPD conditions on practising certificates—for example, practitioners being told they had failed to comply with CPD obligations when they had in fact done so. The LPB itself acknowledged in its 2023–24 Annual Report that an initial digital assessment process was inaccurate, resulting in the “erroneous imposition” of additional CPD conditions on some certificates. The FLPA also reports practitioners receiving certificates bearing unexplained conditions, such as “REFER FILE,” with no corresponding explanation in the certificate legend or other accompanying material.

Delays in Removing Practising Conditions

Submissions from the Joint Submission group, CLWA, FLPA, and Legal Aid WA allege significant delays in removing supervised practice restrictions and other conditions from practising certificates after practitioners have fulfilled requirements. CLWA reports these delays lead to senior lawyers being subject to unnecessary continuing supervision requirements, delayed pay progression, and continuing increased workload on other already stretched staff. The FLPA notes that practitioners unable to obtain unrestricted certificates are prevented from taking on new roles or promotions contingent upon unrestricted status.

The District Court submission echoes these concerns, observing that delays in varying supervised practice conditions constrain the pool of practitioners able to accept grants of legal aid and court appointments, particularly in regional circuits.

Operational Effectiveness: CPD Regulation

Idiosyncratic and Burdensome CPD Framework

Multiple submissions allege that the LPB’s CPD framework is uniquely burdensome among Australian jurisdictions. Unlike NSW, Victoria, and other Uniform Law jurisdictions, where CPD is self-certified by practitioners, WA requires:

• Accreditation of all CPD providers as “QA Providers,” with fees ranging from $1,750 to $7,000.
• QA Providers to upload all CPD participation records to an online CPD Management System (CPDMS), including start and end times of activities.
• Practitioners to obtain CPD through paid accredited providers in most cases, limiting informal or self-directed learning.

Legal Aid WA notes that the requirement to sign in and sign out of CPD sessions creates particular difficulties for practitioners attending interstate sessions, and that the 2024 requirement for five interactive units is not expressly provided for in the Uniform Law or its Rules.

CPDMS Technical Failures

LFA reports persistent technical failures in the CPDMS since its mandated use in 2021, including system errors during entry uploads, data changes from that uploaded by providers, practitioners receiving erroneous non-compliance notifications, and the system being inaccessible for weeks following the May 2025 cyber incident.

CPD Approval Delays

WLWA provides two detailed case studies of CPD approval delays. A CPD event held on 19 October 2023 was not approved until 15 March 2024—over four months later. A second event held on 19 June 2024 was not approved until 14 February 2025—seven months later, during which time the LPB was unable to locate or reconcile WLWA’s payment of the application fee.

The Piddington Society reports that its CPD QA reaccreditation in 2022–23 was not confirmed until the end of March 2023 (the compliance deadline), and that the LPB’s website incorrectly showed Piddington’s accreditation as expired, causing reputational damage and uncertainty for practitioners.

The District Court submission expresses concern that confusion about CPD compliance and late approvals may affect the availability of suitably accredited counsel, particularly in regional and specialist lists where the pool of practitioners is already limited.

Prohibitive Cost for Non-Profit Providers

WLWA was informed it would need to apply as a “Commercial Provider” at a cost of $7,000, despite being a non-profit association with no commercial purpose in its CPD delivery. The only available NFP category requires fewer than 50 members, which WLWA far exceeds. This prohibitive cost structure is a barrier to non-profit and community-based CPD providers in WA.

Accreditation of Education Providers

Protracted PLT Reaccreditation

The Piddington Society details a PLT reaccreditation process that extended from June 2023 to August 2024—over a year—during which Piddington was forced to seek repeated interim approvals to continue enrolling and teaching students. The LPB’s own Terms of Reference anticipated a final report by December 2023, yet the decision was not delivered until August 2024, eight months beyond the intended timeframe.

PMC Accreditation Refusal and Monopoly

The Piddington Society lodged an application to be accredited as a Practice Management Course (PMC) provider in October 2023. Despite multiple comprehensive supplementary submissions, the application was refused in December 2024 on grounds that went beyond the LPB’s published Guidelines. As of September 2025, a further 53-page supplementary submission lodged in June 2025 remained undetermined.

This refusal perpetuates a monopoly in PMC provision in WA—only one provider (the College of Law) is accredited, denying practitioners the choice available in other jurisdictions. The Piddington Society’s proposed course included subsidies for community legal centre lawyers and reinvestment of proceeds into access-to-justice projects.

The District Court submission notes that the limited availability of PMC courses and the absence of competition may slow the progression of experienced advocates into principal and supervisory roles, with downstream effects on the pool of practitioners available to accept complex or lengthy trial work.

Complaints, Investigations, and Disciplinary Processes

Aggressive and Persecutorial Approach

The Joint Submission identifies an “overly aggressive, persecutorial and punitive approach” in the LPB’s complaints and investigations processes, supported by nine detailed case studies. Specific allegations include:

• Use of section 77 of the Uniform Law to suspend practitioners from practice without a hearing or any finding of misconduct—a power intended for the most serious cases requiring immediate public protection—deployed in circumstances not warranting such drastic action.
• Augmenting complaints to allege misleading and deceptive conduct and dishonesty in circumstances where the facts do not support such allegations, potentially in breach of Rule 21.4 of the Professional Conduct Rules.
• Expanding and escalating complaints beyond the initial issue, turning relatively minor administrative errors into more serious allegations of misconduct, then using those expanded allegations to found recommendations with extremely serious consequences.
• Overly onerous and disproportionately short deadlines for responses, given the nature of the allegations and potential repercussions, with refusal to grant extensions of time in circumstances where it would appear reasonable to do so.
• Threatening suspension of practising certificates if practitioners do not comply with specified timelines or requirements, including on the very first substantive interaction with a practitioner under investigation.

The District Court submission does not comment on individual cases but stresses the importance of a complaints system that is timely, fair and proportionate, so that necessary disciplinary action is not delayed while avoiding unnecessary disruption to the conduct of proceedings and the availability of experienced counsel.

Lack of Procedural Fairness

The FLPA submission provides a detailed analysis of procedural fairness failures. Practitioners subject to complaints are not permitted to obtain copies of the submissions made by investigative staff to the LSCC, over which the LPB claims legal professional privilege. Practitioners have no right to attend hearings, hear the case being put against them, or obtain minutes of discussions about their case. Practitioners may be required to waive their legal professional privilege to answer a complaint, even when the complainant is not the client.

The Joint Submission further alleges a lack of procedural fairness, including practitioners not being given the right to respond to allegations before decisions impacting them are made.

Overlap of Investigative and Prosecutorial Functions

The Joint Submission identifies a structural concern that the same employees are involved in both investigative and prosecutorial functions within the complaint-handling process, which runs counter to principles of institutional independence.

Inappropriate Conduct by Individual Investigators

The FLPA reports that its members have identified specific LPB investigators—on multiple occasions—in connection with allegations of unethical behaviour, including:

• Contacting practitioners to elicit information without notifying whether engagement is mandatory or voluntary, and without advising whether the practitioner is under investigation.
• Making threats to suspend practising certificates on the very first substantive interaction.
• Using demeaning language and veiled threats.
• Displaying a lack of commercial insight into the practical demands of legal practice.

Fear of Reprisal

A recurring and significant theme across submissions is practitioners’ fear of reprisal from the LPB. The majority of case study participants asked that their contributions remain confidential and not be shared with the Board. Multiple practitioners expressed fear that if the Board became aware of their participation, they would be targeted:

“I am very concerned about the power of the LPBWA, and I would prefer to keep my name confidential.” — Former partner in large law firm

“I have purposely kept the description vague because if this comes to the attention of the LPB, I fear retribution.” — Litigation lawyer

“I have taken some considerable time to decide whether I should contribute. This is because I know from the experience of some in the profession that if you speak out to raise any concerns about the Legal Practice Board, they have a history of taking reprisals.” — Solicitor in a large commercial law firm

Impact on Mental Health

The Joint Submission states that reported damage to practitioners ranges from “exacerbating already high stress levels and mental health issues, to directly causing anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidal thoughts.” One criminal lawyer in the summary of practitioner feedback reported having “considered suicide” as a consequence of the Board’s handling of their complaint. The Court of Appeal of Western Australia has judicially acknowledged the impact of the Board’s unexplained delays on a practitioner’s mental health (Young v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2022] WASCA 52).

The District Court submission highlights the downstream effects on court users, noting that where practitioners are distressed, overburdened, or subject to sudden suspension, there can be direct consequences for accused persons and civil litigants whose matters are adjourned, fractured, or subject to increased costs.

Disproportionate Costs Regime in Disciplinary Matters

The Joint Submission identifies a legislative cost regime that creates an oppressive dynamic. Under the Uniform Law, if a lawyer is found guilty of misconduct, they must pay the LPB’s costs unless exceptional circumstances exist. Even if the lawyer wins, they can still be ordered to pay the LPB’s costs. If the LPB loses, it will only pay the lawyer’s costs in “special circumstances.” This creates an inherent inequality: the LPB draws on millions in reserves, while practitioners are self-funded, as professional indemnity insurance does not cover defending regulatory proceedings.

Weaponisation of the Complaints Process

The FLPA specifically identifies a pattern of complaints being “weaponised” in family law, where opposing litigants lodge complaints to cause a rift between a practitioner and their client, agitate for fee refunds, or force the practitioner to cease acting. Family lawyers account for 40.5% of all complaints to the LPB, despite representing an estimated 5–15% of the profession.

Communication Failures

Systemic Non-Responsiveness

Every submitting organisation except the Legal Services Council reports significant difficulties in obtaining responses from the LPB. The Joint Submission reports a “general failure to respond to emails and answer the phone.” LFA reports that emails are “often not responded to for weeks, or occasionally months, whilst phone calls are regularly not answered,” contrasting this with other jurisdictions where regulators respond within 24–48 hours.

Law Mutual WA provides documentary evidence that compliance reports sent to the LPB went unnoticed for weeks, and that the LPB incorrectly told practitioners that Law Mutual had not confirmed their insurance compliance—when it had—causing administrative and reputational damage to Law Mutual.

Aggressive and Inappropriate Tone

Multiple submissions allege that communications from LPB staff, particularly those involved in complaints and investigations, are “unhelpful, aggressive, unnecessarily accusatory, and rude.” The FLPA and WLWA both provide specific examples of threatening communications, including threats to suspend practising certificates on first contact.

The District Court notes in its submission that, in its recent experience, formal communications from the LPB to judicial officers and court staff have been courteous and professional, while nonetheless acknowledging the broader concerns raised by the profession and encouraging improved responsiveness to practitioners.

Failure to Respond to Sexual Harassment Reports

WLWA identifies a particularly grave communication failure: a practitioner who twice contacted the LPB’s “Speak Safely” sexual harassment reporting function received only automated responses and was never substantively contacted. The practitioner disclosed her full name, contact details, and the nature of serious historic sexual harassment, yet the LPB failed to respond despite its published commitment to reply within 48 hours. WLWA states it has lost confidence in the Speak Safely initiative and cannot recommend that any practitioner use it as a reporting mechanism.

Gender Inequity and Disproportionate Impact on Women

Parental Leave Policy

WLWA alleges that the LPB’s parental leave policy and its administration disproportionately impact women practitioners. Requiring practitioners on unpaid parental leave to complete bureaucratic applications with fees to reduce CPD obligations “signals that leave for caregiving is not considered a legitimate, respected professional circumstance.” Charging a fee to request CPD variations during parental leave “penalises women practitioners for being mothers,” compounding the existing gender pay gap, career interruptions, and disproportionate caregiving responsibilities.

Part-Time Supervised Practice Policy

The LPB’s supervised practice policy requires a minimum of 20 hours per week over at least three days, with at least 80% of the time physically in the employer’s office. WLWA demonstrates this is discriminatory against parents—predominantly mothers—who balance legal practice with caring responsibilities. A practitioner working 16.5 hours per week across three school-day hours (9 am–2:30 pm) cannot qualify; achieving 20 hours over three days requires 6 hours 40 minutes each day, “virtually unachievable” for parents responsible for school drop-off and pick-up.

The policy was adopted by the LPB’s Admissions and Registration Committee on 5 February 2025 without any notice to or consultation with the profession, including WLWA. It also disproportionately impacts disabled practitioners who need greater flexibility.

Impact on the Community Legal Sector Workforce

Women comprise 78–85% of the community legal workforce. These practitioners already face significantly lower pay than their counterparts in Legal Aid, government, and private practice. The flow-on effect further impacts women clients, as 65% of those accessing community legal services are women.

Cyber Incidents

May 2025 Ransomware Attack

On or about 21 May 2025, the LPB’s systems were attacked by the “Dire Wolf” ransomware gang, which threatened to publish 300GB of stolen data. A small amount of information was disclosed on 27 May 2025, including corporate correspondence with minimal contact information, operational and resourcing information, and banking information relating to the Board and a small number of third parties.

The attack occurred during the practising certificate renewal period, preventing online renewals and causing “a high level of stress and inconvenience.” LFA reports that QA providers were not notified of the incident until mid‑July—nearly two months after practitioners were notified—despite the breach affecting QA providers’ access to the CPDMS and involving their staff’s data.

December 2022 Cyber Incident

The Joint Submission notes a previous cybersecurity incident in December 2022, in response to which the LPB put measures in place “to ensure that an incident of this nature does not happen again.” These measures clearly failed in May 2025. There are also allegations that the Board failed to properly escalate information about the May 2025 incident to the full Board or Management Committee, and that Board members’ requests for meetings or information were refused.

The District Court submission, while not providing a technical analysis, stresses the importance of robust and resilient regulatory systems to ensure that core admission and certification functions are maintained during system outages, thereby protecting the orderly conduct of court business.

Interference with Insurance Claims

Law Mutual WA raises a unique and serious allegation concerning the LPB’s involvement in professional negligence claims. In a recent matter, the LSCC’s involvement created pressure on an insured practitioner to agree to a financial settlement higher than Law Mutual and its panel solicitors had assessed as reflecting the claimant’s true loss, to avoid further disciplinary action. An LPB employee indicated the LSCC could make a compensation order against the practitioner personally, while admitting he had “not yet given proper consideration to the quantum of the claim.”

Law Mutual is concerned that this approach may encourage claimants to use the LSCC to force firms into inflated settlements to avoid the administrative burden and stress of disciplinary proceedings, undermining the integrity of Law Mutual’s considered and proper claims management process.

Failure to Address Interstate Claims Harvesting

The ALA alleges that when practitioners report predatory interstate claims‑harvesting practices to the LPB, the Board redirects complainants to the jurisdiction in which the harvesting lawyer is physically located, even though the claims arise in WA and involve WA residents. The ALA submits that the LPB should accept and determine such complaints irrespective of the practitioner’s physical location.

Failure to Implement Ombudsman’s Recommendations

In 2020, the WA Ombudsman investigated the LSCC’s complaint handling, identifying serious problems, including excessive investigation timeframes, lack of KPIs, inadequate public reporting, and the absence of an electronic complaints management system (despite the LSCC having reported an urgent need for one since 2005–06). Thirteen recommendations were made.

Despite these recommendations and a subsequent organisational review by external consultants, the Joint Submission alleges that the problems persist. The LPB’s 2023–24 Annual Report—the first to report against KPIs (implemented five years after the Ombudsman recommended them)—shows the Board failed to meet all investigation-timing KPIs by a considerable margin. Rather than address these failings, the Annual Report notes the Board intends to adjust the KPIs themselves.

Board’s Response to Concerns

Failure to Engage

The Joint Submission records that when five organisations jointly sent an Urgent Notice of Concern to the Chair and Deputy Chair on 30 July 2025, the Board’s Executive Director provided a holding response. At a subsequent meeting on 26 August 2025, the Board dismissed out of hand the concern that practitioners were afraid to come forward due to fear of being targeted.

A Senior Counsel member of the Board was observed posting on social media that criticism was from “very few in the profession,” a response that submitters characterised as dismissive and discouraging.

LPB’s Own Submission

The LPB’s 108‑page submission acknowledges that “there have been occasions where it has not met the expectations of members of the Western Australian legal profession” and that such occasions “can have a direct and very real impact on the affected legal practitioners.” However, it characterises the issues only in general terms, notes that the Terms of Reference are broad, states that it was not given specific particulars, and describes itself as having implemented “a broad agenda of self‑evaluation and improvement.” The LPB cautions that “the performance of a regulator ought not be measured by the feedback of those who feel aggrieved by particular instances of regulatory intervention.”

The District Court’s submission, while measured in tone, implicitly supports a fact‑based, data‑driven assessment of the Board’s performance. It encourages the Committee to consider both the concerns of the profession and the operational needs of the courts.

Summary of Allegations of Weaponisation of Regulatory Functions

A prominent theme in the submissions is the extensive evidence that the LPB has weaponised its regulatory functions, using them as a retaliatory tool against critics. Submitters allege that this has occurred in the following ways:

• Punitive use of coercive powers
  
  • The LPB is alleged to adopt an “overly aggressive, persecutorial and punitive” stance in complaints and investigations.
  • Section 77 suspension powers—intended only for urgent cases of serious risk to the public—are said to be deployed in circumstances that do not warrant such drastic interim intervention, turning a protective tool into a punitive weapon.
• Improper escalation and augmentation of complaints
  
  • Investigative staff are alleged to augment complaints by adding allegations of dishonesty or misleading conduct (including under Rule 21.4) where the facts do not objectively support them.
  • Relatively minor administrative or practice‑management errors are said to be expanded and reframed as serious misconduct, then used to justify recommendations with extreme professional consequences.
• Procedural unfairness used as pressure
  
  • Practitioners under investigation cannot see staff submissions to the LSCC, cannot attend hearings, and cannot obtain minutes, yet may be required to waive legal professional privilege.
  • Very short deadlines, refusal of reasonable extensions, and early threats to suspend practising certificates are alleged to be used as leverage rather than neutral case‑management tools.
• Fear of reprisal and deterrence of criticism
  
  • Multiple practitioners report a well‑founded fear that criticising the LPB or participating in external reviews will expose them to targeting in future investigations.
  • Case study participants insisted on anonymity, explicitly citing fears of “retribution” and reprisals if the LPB learns of their involvement.
  • This climate of fear is characterised as a weaponisation of regulatory authority, using regulation to police critics rather than solely to protect the public.
• Nefarious investigative–prosecutorial overlap
  
  • The same staff are alleged to perform both investigative and prosecutorial roles, undermining institutional independence.
  • This structural fusion is said to make the complaints process feel less like neutral fact‑finding and more like a one‑way enforcement machine, heightening practitioners’ sense that powers are being marshalled against them.
• Overly aggressive and demeaning communications
  
  • Submissions describe a pattern of “unhelpful, aggressive, unnecessarily accusatory, and rude” correspondence from LPB staff.
  • Communications are said to include veiled threats and demeaning language from investigators.
  • Threats to suspend practising certificates are, in some examples, made at the outset of an interaction, using the regulator’s ultimate sanction as a first‑resort intimidation tactic.
• Exploitation of costs and financial leverage in disciplinary matters
  
  • Under the Uniform Law cost rules, if a practitioner is found guilty, they almost invariably pay the LPB’s costs; if they win, they may still be ordered to pay the LPB’s costs; and the LPB rarely pays practitioners’ costs.
  • With the LPB backed by multi‑million‑dollar reserves and practitioners largely self‑funded (professional indemnity insurance not responding to regulatory defence costs), this asymmetry is described as financial coercion, pressuring practitioners to settle or capitulate rather than contest allegations.
• Unlawful interference with insurance claims handling
  
  • Law Mutual WA reports a case where LSCC involvement allegedly pressured an insured practitioner to accept a settlement higher than the objectively assessed loss, under threat of disciplinary consequences and potential personal compensation orders.
  • This is framed as the use of disciplinary powers to force inflated civil outcomes, thereby weaponising regulation in the context of private negligence disputes.
• Weaponisation in family law disputes
  
  • The FLPA describes complaints in family law being lodged tactically by opposing parties to disrupt representation, demand fee refunds, or force practitioners off the record.
  • The LPB’s complaint processes are said to be susceptible to, and insufficiently guarded against, use as a strategic weapon within litigation, particularly significant in a jurisdiction where family lawyers attract a disproportionate share of complaints.
• Overall characterisation
  
  • Taken together, these allegations depict a regulator whose formidable statutory powers—suspension, investigation, prosecution, costs, and reputational impact—are, in the eyes of many submitters, being exercised in ways that punish, intimidate and silence, rather than being narrowly tailored to public protection and procedural fairness.

Endnotes

^[1] The original submissions, upon which this report is based, may be accessed via: https://files.ruleofflaw.com/folder/9u93m8f0a5e6697e848d38ec12bae7f274de3

Or

The Parliament of Western Australia website: https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/commit.nsf/%28EvidenceOnly%29/1A16E464E7294AA548258CE6000C0A01?opendocument#Submissions 

^[2] A copy of the official media release is available here: https://files.ruleofflaw.com/file/9u93md17d8a37bf804c5a8ba7edd1ee81436e