Leading our profession - Queensland Law Society · Leading our profession 40 Queensland Law Society | Annual report 2013.14 Results of a new strategic approach 2013-14 heralded a

Leading our profession


38 Queensland Law Society | Annual report 2013.14

Key outcomes for 2013-14

Responded to 3571 email and phone inquiries on ethics issues and 4913 email and phone inquiries on professional standards issues including trust accounting.

Launched our much-anticipated updated Costs Guide.

Managed several major advocacy challenges, for example, in relation to workers’ compensation and the ‘bikie laws’.

208 advocacy submissions dispatched and 194% increase in parliamentary debate mentions.

98% of our 4913 phone and email professional standards inquiries received a same-day turnaround.

Adopted, and hosted the statewide launch of the Tristan Jepson Memorial Foundation’s Best Practice Guidelines for the Legal Profession to support good practice in the profession in managing mental health risks.

Leadership in advocacy

Advocacy on proposed legislation is one of the most essential services we provide for members and the public. Through our submissions, we offer the government an impartial, expert assessment to help ensure laws are fair and work well for those of us who administer them, and for the community.

In 2013-14 we received a 194% increase in parliamentary debate mentions. This reflects both the high value of our contribution to these critical debates, and of course the lively legislative arena of late 2013. Despite consultation challenges, we successfully represented the profession across a number of areas of law, maintaining our healthy submission production and advocacy success rates (defined as changes to legislation, policy or procedure of government).

We have 329 committee members in total. Our committees are made up of members who are experts in their fields and volunteer their time to advise on current law and opportunities for change. In addition, they contribute the content for many of our substantive professional development events.

This year we welcomed 56 new committee members while 53 members resigned, this represents a turnover rate of approximately 16%, successfully achieving our target of <20% turnover thanks to each committee having an identified recruitment talent pool. We are pleased to have maintained our committee numbers while they were reinvigorated with ideas and contributions from new members. As at 30 June 2014, we successfully recruited new members from the following types of law firms and legal practice:

• 14 from the Large Law Firm Group• 3 from large law firms• 7 from medium-sized firms• 2 from small firms• 15 from in-house counsel,

the tertiary sector, Legal Aid Queensland, community legal centres and Indigenous legal services.

NB: This list includes members appointed to more than one committee.


Queensland Law Society provides leadership in advocacy, ethics, professional standards and resilience – the latter being one of the most significant issues affecting the legal profession. In doing so, we deliver numerous benefits to our members and the community.

For members, we showcased our leadership strength in 2013-14 through advocating on major legislative issues, further developing our highly regarded and innovative Ethics Centre services, effectively managing essential trust account management services and proactively addressing mental wellbeing trends.

Our legal profession leadership benefits the community as we support development and application of fair and just laws, support redress for social concerns and provide solicitors with guidance and tools for ethical, professionally sound practice.

Stand-out results are highlighted in our key outcomes on this page and reinforced through positive member feedback quoted throughout this section.

In 2013-14 we received a 194% increase in parliamentary debate mentions.


39 Annual report 2013.14 | Queensland Law Society

Committee members rate Advocacy

In keeping with Queensland Law Society’s drive to assess and continually improve our performance, in 2013-14 we surveyed committee members on their perceptions of our advocacy efforts, Committee Charter awareness and recall of important issues. We received a substantive response rate of 41% from policy committee members with the strongest response rate from large firms. The results were pleasing, showing a high level of engagement and satisfaction with our advocacy team and Queensland Law Society’s advocacy initiatives, and excellent recall of policy matters.

• 4.58/5 average satisfaction score for support received from policy solicitors

• 4.34/5 average satisfaction score for how members’ viewed their committee contributed to the profession in 2013

• 4.16/5 average satisfaction score for the Society’s advocacy on behalf of members in 2013

• 74% awareness of terms in Queensland Law Society’s Committee Charter

• the Society’s top three advocacy issues/policy matters in 2013 were: (1) bikie laws; (2) workers’ compensation changes; and (3) Legal Services Commission (LSC) concerns regarding costs.

Each committee developed an annual program consisting of the committee’s objectives, proposed initiatives and meeting schedules. This supports the strategic plan as the outcomes of these programs demonstrate our leadership in advocacy.

Working with state government

The end of 2013 proved to be a testing time for Queensland Law Society and our advocacy efforts as the state government progressed a robust legislative agenda.

Primarily, public focus was on three legislative initiatives, all introduced and passed during the parliamentary sitting session of mid-October 2013, and included legislation:

• targeting criminal motorcycle gangs and other organised crime associations (which became known as the ‘bikie laws’)

• making significant changes to the Queensland Workers’ Compensation Scheme

• targeting the continued detention of certain sex offenders by order of the Executive Government.

The substance of all three of these policy initiatives was unexpected and was not the subject of prior consultation with QLS or other stakeholders.

2013 QLS President Annette Bradfield raised concerns about the fact that these major initiatives were introduced and passed in the one parliamentary sitting, without review by any parliamentary committee, and that they were not the subject of prior public consultation on the government’s policy initiatives.

In addition, certain elements of parts of the legislative packages were highlighted as being problematic, including:

• the effect that a permanent injury assessment threshold for access to common law would have on the Workers’ Compensation Scheme

• the very broad ambit of the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act and the fact that it applied to groups beyond those proscribed as criminal motorcycle gangs

• the nature of detention by executive order.

Throughout this period we constantly reiterated our standing offer to consult with the Queensland Government on ameliorating unintended consequences and provided a number of suggestions for reform with respect to the ‘bikie laws’. The government’s sex offender laws were consequently found to be invalid by the Queensland Court of Appeal.

Appeals to the High Court are current on aspects of the ‘bikie laws’. Into 2014 QLS maintained its communication with the government and spoke out when appropriate on issues of good law or to defend the reputation of the legal profession.

Mandatory sentencing policy paper launch

Below: Caxton Legal Centre director Scott McDougall and His Honour Judge Marshall

Irwin, District Court of Queensland

Right: University of Queensland TC Beirne School of Law dean Professor

Sarah Derrington and Anglican Church Southern Queensland Social

Responsibilities Committee chair the Very Reverend Dr Peter Catt

Bottom right: Queensland Law Society principal policy solicitor Matt Dunn, Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland commissioner Kevin

Cocks and Queensland Law Society Access to Justice/Pro Bono Committee chair Robert Reed



Results of a new strategic approach

2013-14 heralded a new approach for advocacy, with a strategic focus on significant issues such as the effective administration of law, the interests of the profession and the community, and the need to uphold the Rule of Law.

We saw a significant increase in parliamentary mentions reflecting the relevance, importance and accuracy of our arguments and the success of strategically choosing the issues on which to promote our views.

Advocacy activity 2013-14 2012-13

Submissions dispatched 208 203

Quotes in Queensland parliamentary debates 262 135

Successes (defined as changes to legislation, policy or procedure of government)

77 74

Major contributing factors to our advocacy success are the expertise of our committees and maintaining productive stakeholder relationships. We are viewed as an influential stakeholder and regularly take members’ concerns on legislative and government policy issues to government. More than 300 solicitors on 26 committees give voice to members’ concerns for their clients, and the broader community, nearly one third, 28% of these are from large law firms.

Some notable successes in 2013-14 were:

• our active participation in the Child Protection Inquiry resulting in adoption of a number of our recommendations in the government’s final report

• incorporation of our recommendations into directors’ liability law reform resulting in the government removing its proposal to tier deemed liability provisions that reversed the onus of proof

• the Standing Senate Committee on Economics noting our concerns regarding proposed franchising law changes and based on these, recommending draft legislation be further refined

• the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee referencing Queensland Law Society in their report on G20 legislation, endorsing our proposal to establish a legal hotline, remove offence duplication and require the Police Commissioner to provide written notice to people prohibited from security areas.

For more information on these successes, visit qls.com.au > For the profession > Advocacy.

Our members’ voice in the media

There was an increase in media interest in Queensland Law Society’s policy views in 2013-14, demonstrated by an 82% increase in published and broadcast media content. This year 490 stories highlighted our advocacy activities. Reflecting our new strategic approach to significant issues, we produced 33 media releases, compared to 49 in 2012-13. Our responses to media inquiries, at 131, were 38 more than the previous year.

Media activity 2013-14 2012-13

Media releases produced and distributed

33 49

QLS-responded media

131 93

Media reports filed

490 269

NB: The number of media reports filed is not equivalent to the total number of media reports on the next page as: (a) the same content is often syndicated across a number of outlets and (b) the reported total number of reports detailed here also includes non-policy based news items.

These results reflect the quality of our media content and strength of our media relationships. More broadly, the increase in media stories also signifies growing media story syndication and the consolidation of certain media outlets.

More than 300 solicitors on 26 committees give voice to members’ concerns for their clients, and the broader community.

Mandatory sentencing policy paper launch

Above right: Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson and Queensland Law

Society 2014 president Ian Brown

Right: Queensland Law Society councillor Michael Fitzgerald, Fox Bradfield Lawyers

partner George Fox, councillor Bill Potts and The Honourable Justice Margaret McMurdo AC,

President, Queensland Court of Appeal

www.qls.com.au/For_the_profession/Advocacy



This year we commissioned iSentia to conduct a 2013-14 media review of our activity. The review includes analysis of our policy and non-policy based media activity, although the majority of this activity relates to our advocacy work.

• A total of 3,414 reports mentioned Queensland Law Society this year. This includes all syndicated and non-policy based news items. These reached a cumulative potential audience/circulation of 42,745,467 and had an advertising space value of $7,573,538.

• Radio was the leading media type by volume, with 1460 reports.

• Newspaper/online publication coverage had the highest audience/circulation of 23,096,850, cumulatively.

• Leading outlets in the various media types that published content mentioning Queensland Law Society were:• print: The Courier-Mail• radio: Radio National• television: ABC News 24• online: news.com.au.

Mandatory sentencing policy paper launched

In April we launched our mandatory sentencing policy paper that forms the foundation of our future advocacy work in this area. The paper detailed our concerns with mandatory sentencing and offered alternate solutions to reduce crime.

Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson and Queensland Law Society president Ian Brown presented the paper to a number of important stakeholders. Among the attendees were President of the Court of Appeal the Honourable Justice Margaret McMurdo AC, Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Kevin Cocks and Bar Association of Queensland president Peter Davis QC.

The launch received significant media interest from Brisbane Times, The Courier-Mail, ABC, 4BC, The Australian and APN (regional newswire service). The paper has been downloaded 98 times.

This is a positive result when compared to total downloads of the last advocacy submission on mandatory penalties, which was downloaded 16 times.

Mandatory sentencing policy paper launch, 4 April 2014

“Mandatory sentencing is another incremental stake stabbed in the heart of the foundations of our liberal democracy, driven by the progressive ideal that more prescriptive legislation can drive better results.”

Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson, Australian Human Rights Commission

An assortment of important advocacy issues

These issue synopses are a sample of some of the more critical concerns during the year on which we provided submissions to government.

Anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing legislation

In December 2013, the Australian Government released an Issues Paper regarding a statutory review of Commonwealth anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) legislation. Queensland Law Society provided significant contributions to two submissions through the Law Council of Australia in January 2014 and February 2014.

One relevant aspect of the Issues Paper was analysing whether sectors, including the legal profession and the services it provides, should be regulated under AML/CTF legislation. We expressed significant concern with any outcomes that would result in lawyers being subject to additional compliance costs, as had been the case in other jurisdictions where AML/CTF obligations were imposed on the legal profession, citing:

• No specific risks have been identified in Australia by the AML regulators relating to the legal profession.

• The legal profession is already highly regulated (with the Uniform Legal Profession Act coming

into NSW and Victoria as a good example). There are currently close to 5000 pages of regulation for a profession of 60,000 practitioners.

• The legal profession has the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules and the Australian Bar Conduct Rules, which also have specific requirements relating to dealing with clients’ money.

• There are significant penalties for lawyers who breach those rules – including losing a practising certificate and jail for fraudulent acts.

• The costs of the scheme in the UK have been high and the equivalent cost in Australia would be close to $800m. We expect that the consumers of legal services will absorb these costs at least to some extent.

• The additional cost would impact across the profession, but particularly harshly on smaller practices. The costs are very high across the profession, and completely out of proportion to the risks sought to be managed.

• These additional costs will impede Australian firms competing in the Asia-Pacific region, where other countries are not applying the same rules.

• Our legal system is premised on lawyers’ obligations to the Courts and clients. Confidentiality is a key to client expectations. The reporting requirements of AML will undermine this basic expectation in an unacceptable way.

• Canada and the USA have not included the legal profession in similar schemes, they rely on the legal profession regulatory regime to manage any risks.

• Queensland Law Society has worked closely with the Law Council of Australia on a guide for solicitors (Anti-Money Laundering Guide for Legal Practitioners) that gives practical guidance on how to avoid becoming involved in illegal activities.

We supported the legal profession speaking with one voice to oppose this concerning proposal. We will keep members informed of any developments.

http://www.news.com.au



Reform of the Queensland Workers’ Compensation Scheme

Queensland Law Society was a strong advocate for the strengths of the existing Queensland Workers’ Compensation Scheme in the parliamentary review of the scheme and in the face of the Queensland Government’s subsequent reforms.

We opposed the introduction of an injury rating threshold for access to common law claims.

The LNP-dominated parliamentary committee tasked with reviewing the Workers’ Compensation Scheme agreed with our submissions and positions espoused at public hearings that substantial reform of the features of the scheme was not needed.

The committee’s report advised against the introduction of common law access thresholds and the abolition of claims for injuries sustained in journeys to and from work. Queensland Law Society publicly supported the committee’s report.

We continued to make our position known to Members of Parliament and relevant Ministers following release of the report.

After much media speculation, the government submitted its response on the day it introduced a Bill into parliament to effect a number of substantial reforms to the scheme. The Bill was declared urgent and among other changes:

• introduced a more than 5% degree of permanent impairment threshold to access damages at common law

• abolished QComp and transferred its responsibilities to the Department of Justice and Attorney-General

• required a worker to provide an employer with a notification of previous injuries, if requested, and denied an injured worker compensation for an aggravation of an undisclosed injury

• allowed for access to a prospective worker’s claims history in particular circumstances

• increased the onus of proof for compensable psychiatric or psychological injuries

• increased penalties for persons who defraud or attempt to defraud insurers.

We voiced our concern about these changes in the media and by correspondence to all Members of Parliament. Ultimately the Bill was passed late at night following a motion to limit debate carried by the government.

Anti-association laws – Amendments to the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 and the Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) Amendment Act 2013

Anti-association legislation continued to be a major concern for the Society. Following the mid-October introduction into parliament of

urgent laws generally directed at participants in criminal organisations described as ‘bikie gangs’, the government introduced a second tranche in November 2013.

We objected to the mandatory sentencing provision under s7 of the Act, which could see a person being subjected to up to 25 years in prison, in addition to sentencing for the commission of the offence. We also objected to the provisions which sought to reverse the onus of proof:

• s5(2), where the person has to prove that the association is not one that has, as one of its purposes, the purpose of engaging in or conspiring to engage in declared offences

• s6, where the person has to prove that they are not an office bearer of an association.

The Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 was introduced to parliament on 19 November 2013, referred to a parliamentary committee for review and report by 21 November 2013 and passed on the evening of that day. It took only two days for the Bill to be introduced, read, reviewed and passed. We objected to the mandatory sentencing provision which would see a six month mandatory imprisonment term for the commission of new offences and the reversal of the onus of proof provisions.

The Bill introduced amendments to use confidential police intelligence about whether a person was a member of a declared criminal organisation to determine whether they were fit to hold an occupational licence under the Electrical Safety Act 2002, the Liquor Act 1992, the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, the Racing Act 2002, the Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 2003, the Security Providers Act 1993, the Tow Truck Act 1973, the Weapons Act 1990, the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Bill 2013.

No review and

appeal rights

Disputes will increase

Costs will increase

= higher premiums

More than 50% barred from common law

WHAT WE’LL HAVE

WHAT WE’VE GOT

The government’s workers’

compensation changes mean that from

15 October, more than 50% of people

who hurt themselves at work can’t

sue their employer for negligence.

If you are concerned or would

like more information, contact

your local Member of Parliament

or Queensland Law Society.

qls.com.au

On balance, it’s bad for Queenslanders

98% return

to work rate

WorkCover

2012-13 = half

a billion profit

Only 3.1% of claims are disputed

Open access to common law

Advertisement in The Courier-Mail on 17 October 2013



Despite the compressed timeframe for the parliamentary committee review (36 hours), we made two submissions raising concerns. In February 2014, in support of our members we responded publicly to the Premier’s claims that criminal defence lawyers were part of the criminal gang machine. The Society will continue to advocate for reform in this area.

G20 (Safety and Security) Bill 2013

Queensland Law Society made detailed submissions to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee on the G20 (Safety and Security) Bill 2013.

Firstly, we indicated that we welcomed the G20 forum being held in Queensland and understood the need for a heightened emphasis on security and safety in line with this significant international event. However, we noted that some of the ordinary principles of justice were being suspended under the Bill, and existing alternatives in the criminal law were available to address some of the security concerns.

We did not consider there was a need to provide a presumption against bail, given the current laws in the Bail Act 1980 were sufficient to ensure that, in the appropriate circumstances, a person who posed an ongoing threat to the G20 would be refused bail. We also requested clarification as to how remand centres would accommodate a significant rise in the number of individuals on remand during the G20 period. Other significant concerns included:

• reversal of the onus of proof by some of the offences contained in the Act, including that people carrying everyday items which may be a ‘prohibited item’ under the Act into the security area bore the onus of proof to provide lawful excuse

• police power to seize and remove obstruction objects, which may be immediately forfeited to the State, including bicycles, cars and trucks. We submitted that forfeiture applications could be made to a court, particularly in circumstances where valuable items may be in question.

In light of these proposals, we suggested that the government should examine ways of increasing the availability of legal assistance to provide information and advice about the operation of the proposed legislation to members of the community. We commented that in NSW during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, a legal hotline was formed to provide information, referrals and legal advice. We recommended that the government establish and fund a similar service.

Queensland Law Society’s president and advocacy representatives appeared at the public hearing on 26 September 2013. In response to the Society’s submissions, the committee recommended that:

• clause 18 of the Bill be amended to remove unnecessary duplication between the criterion involving damage to property and the definition of violent disruption offence

• the Minister for Police and Community Safety engage in further discussions with the Attorney-General and LAQ to investigate the establishment of a G20 Legal Hotline similar to that put in place for the Sydney APEC meeting

• clause 51(3) of the Bill be amended to require the Commissioner of Police to give written notice of a decision under clause 51(2) to a person who made written submissions, as soon as reasonably practicable.

The G20 (Safety and Security) Bill 2013 was passed on 29 October 2013. The government endorsed our suggestion regarding a legal hotline. In addition to advocacy for the hotline, Queensland Law Society supported the Caxton Legal Centre’s training for independent legal observers during the G20. We will keep members informed of relevant developments. As an international event, the G20 will draw media attention to the management of any civil actions.

Property Occupations Bill 2013

Queensland Law Society has called for reform of the requirements for forming residential sales contracts for some time.

We appreciated being consulted by government on the outline of a property occupations Bill to relocate property agent elements in the split of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000. While we contributed extensively to the process and were supportive of the intent and general direction of the proposed legislation, the government did not adopt as matters of policy some issues of concern the Society raised.

On 20 November 2013 the Attorney-General introduced the Property Occupations Bill 2013 into Queensland Parliament and it was referred to the Parliamentary Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee.

We were particularly supportive of the simplification of the warning statement requirements when entering into a residential property sales contract. In submissions to the parliamentary committee we cautioned against removing the requirement for a person to obtain legal advice before waiving or shortening their cooling off rights. We also raised concern with the practical implications of a change to make a contract signed within two days of an auction an ‘auction contract’, without a cooling off right.

The removal of the existing termination right for a buyer where a seller fails to comply with inclusion of the new warning statement in the body of the contract meant innocent parties could be lured into non-complying contracts by shysters and may have few rights to seek recourse once bound to the contract.

The Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee tabled its report in parliament on 24 February 2014, where our submissions were extensively quoted, but the committee proposed no amendments.



Committee chairs

We thank our committee chairs for their commitment to the profession, volunteering of their expertise and coordination for their members. This list is also available on our website: qls.com.au > Becoming a member > Member benefits > Professional benefits > Committees.

Committee Chair

Access to Justice/Pro Bono Law Committee Chair: Robert Reed, Minter Ellison

Deputy Chair: Bruce Doyle, Doyle Family Law

Accident Compensation/Tort Law Committee Chair: Michael Garbett, Moray & Agnew

Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee Chair: Khory McCormick, Minter Ellison

Banking and Financial Services Law Committee Chair: Ian Lockhart, Minter Ellison

Deputy Chair: Michael Anastas, HWL Ebsworth

Children’s Law Committee Chair: Jennifer Glover, Legal Aid Queensland

Deputy Chair: Damian Bartholomew, Youth Advocacy Centre Inc.

Company Law Committee (co-sits as Law Council of Australia Committee)

Chair: Bruce Cowley, Minter Ellison

Competition and Consumer Law Committee Chair: David Grace, Cooper Grace Ward

Construction and Infrastructure Law Committee (co-sits as Law Council of Australia Committee)

Chair: Ross Williams, HWL Ebsworth

Criminal Law Committee Chair: Glen Cranny, Gilshenan & Luton Legal Practice

Early Career Lawyers Committee Chair: Greer Oliver, CBP Pty Ltd

Elder Law Committee Chair: Dianne Pendergast, Barrister-at-Law

Deputy Chair: Brian Herd, CRH Law

Equalising Opportunities in the Law Committee Chair: Ann-Maree David, The College of Law Qld Pty Ltd

Deputy Chair: Paula Rogers, Queensland Law Reform Commission

Family Law Committee Chair: Alison Ross, HopgoodGanim

Deputy Chair: Katharine Atkins, Jones Mitchell Lawyers

Franchising Law Committee Chair: Tony Conaghan, Thomson Geer

Government Lawyers Committee Chair: Shane Budden, Queensland Building and Construction Commission

Health and Disability Law Committee Chair: to be appointed

Industrial Law Committee Chair: Robert Stevenson, Australian Workplace Lawyers

Insolvency and Reconstruction Law Committee (co-sits as Law Council of Australia Committee)

Chair: Scott Butler, McCullough Robertson

International Law/Relations Committee Chair: Teresa Kearney, Russells

Litigation Rules Committee Chair: Tony Deane, Clayton Utz

Deputy Chair: Paul Garrett, Hickey & Garrett

Mining and Resources Committee Chair: Jeremy Chenoweth, Ashurst Australia

Not-For-Profit Law Committee Chair: Matthew Turnour, Neumann & Turnour Lawyers

Deputy Chair: Andrew Lind, Corney & Lind

Planning and Environmental Law Committee Chair: Leanne Bowie, Leanne Bowie Lawyers

Practice Development and Management Committee Chair: Elizabeth Shearer, Affording Justice

Property and Development Law Committee Chair: Matthew Raven, Gadens Lawyers – Brisbane

Revenue Law Committee Chair: Duncan Bedford, McCullough Robertson

Succession Law Committee Chair: Gary Lanham, Minter Ellison

Deputy Chair: Glenn Dickson, Barrister-at-Law

Technology and Intellectual Property Committee Chair: Harold Littler, McKays Solicitors

Deputy Chair: Angeline Behan, Wynnes Patent & Trade Mark Attorneys

http://www.qls.com.au/Becoming_a_member/Member_benefits/Professional_benefits



Ethics

Signature achievements for our Ethics Centre and Ethics Committee this year included the development and launch of the updated Costs Guide and finalised content for the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules Commentary, to be released in early July 2014. In addition, we further extended our ethics offering with frequent bespoke education sessions to medium and large law firms, inaugural participation in the Practice Management Course and holding the first Queensland Law Society Senior Counsellors’ Conference in more than a decade.

QLS Costs Guide 2014

In March 2014 we launched our much-anticipated updated Costs Guide. The Costs Guide is delivered as part of our role to support the profession’s understanding of practical issues with respect to the solicitor-client costs relationship. The guide helps practitioners better engage with their clients through its strong focus on client communication – encouraging solicitors to clearly explain expected costs at the outset and inform clients when circumstances change, prior to continuing work. It provides templates and examples of covering letters and client agreements and covers different concerns in different types of law, for example, if you are a criminal law solicitor, how to ensure you are paid in ‘clean’ money, or if you are a succession law solicitor, how to charge an estate if you are also the executor.

The Costs Guide was launched at QLS Symposium 2014 and has been popular with members. To date, the web page has had 2108 unique pageviews and the guide downloaded 1702 times. Content from the guide will be incorporated into 2014-15 regional intensive workshops.

Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules Commentary

A major undertaking this year was development of our Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules Commentary. In 2012 the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules (ASCR) replaced the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Rule 2007. It was envisaged that each law society would adopt (via their jurisdiction’s rule making process) the ASCR as their solicitors’ conduct rules. So far, three jurisdictions have done so: Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales. The Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012 in Practice: A Commentary for Australian Legal Practitioners (ASCR Commentary) is the most comprehensive guide to help practitioners understand the ASCR.

It details the following issues, with extensive case citations:

• the nature and purpose of the rules• fundamental duties of solicitors• client relations• advocacy and litigation• solicitor relations• law practice management.

Most of the rules are annotated with practical suggestions on how to manage ethical issues. The commentary also contains questions to help resolve ethical dilemmas, reference tables for both legislation and cases and a full index. It will be available to members in early July 2014.

197916.3%

423334.8%

5774.8%

8747.2%

510.4%

2021.7%

9898.1%

90.1%

1171.0%

7866.5%

211617.4%

2141.8%

Oth

er

Dire

ctor

/Par

tner

Em

ploy

ed s

olic

itor

Gov

ernm

ent

Sol

e pr

actit

ione

r

Aca

dem

ic

Con

sulta

nt

Cor

pora

te

Judi

cial

Com

mun

ity le

gal

Not

pra

ctis

ing

Stu

dent

/Cle

rk

Status of members by position typeCorporate lawyer membership increased by 5.7%, demonstrating commercial clients’ preference to use in-house counsel rather than outsource work to law firms.Government membership was stable.

The Queensland Law Society Costs Guide 2014 is popular with members,

so far downloaded 1702 times

Costs Guide 2014 Edition

Version 1.0



Educating on ethics

We had three notable ethics-based learning and professional development achievements in 2013-14 – our ethics team started presenting at Queensland Law Society’s practice management courses, we maintained a high number of law firm engagement sessions and we held our first Queensland Law Society Senior Counsellors’ Conference in more than 10 years following a review of the service.

Ethics workshops offered in PMC

The Ethics Centre team now present the professional responsibility component of practice management courses, previously the role of our professional standards team. The change was part of broader course improvements for greater attendee participation and applied learning. Course attendees are still taught the technical aspects and requirements of trust account management and this is now combined with a focus on broader ethical issues. These are presented as case studies in a workshop format, as opposed to the previous panel-based discussions. The workshops reinforce attendees’ prior at-home learning and provoke thinking on ethical issues. A sample case study is provided below.

Engaging law firms

Our engagement sessions are targeted at medium and large law firms, tailored for each organisation’s circumstances. The purpose of the sessions is to educate members on ethics such as their obligations, how to ensure they keep within the bounds of acceptable practice and applying this knowledge to relevant example scenarios. We also provide information on our ethics offerings, such as the inquiry service, web resources and Queensland Law Society senior counsellors. Our average presentation and presenter scores were particularly high – 4.6 and 4.7 respectively. These are excellent results considering we maintained a demanding schedule of 4-5 sessions a month. Positive results are also reflected in member feedback (see this page).

Case study 1

Duncan Lawyers maintains a website that describes the firm’s history and areas of legal practice.

The website also includes biographies of each of the firm’s solicitors. These biographies provide information as to areas of specialisation and recent professional accomplishments.

Adjacent to the biographical information for each solicitor is a link permitting someone viewing the biography to send an email directly to the solicitor.

Using the link provided on the website, John White from Arc Corporation Pty Ltd (Arc) sends an email to Bruce Anderson, one of the solicitors at Duncan Lawyers. Bruce specialises in commercial litigation.

In John’s email to Bruce, John indicates that Arc wishes to retain him to bring a claim against Pollock Corporation. John selected Bruce in good faith based on the published qualifications. John and Arc have had no prior dealings with Bruce or Duncan Lawyers.

Are there any ethical issues?

Supporting our profession’s leading practitioners

We have 48 Queensland Law Society senior counsellors across Queensland who are experienced practitioners available to provide guidance to members on professional and ethical issues – a 29% increase on last year when we had 37 counsellors. The increase is due to a successful recruitment campaign and improvements to the service and program structure that included introducing a reporting mechanism and reintroducing the QLS Senior Counsellors’ Conference.

In 2013-14 we held the first conference for more than 10 years. It attracted 38 attendees, 79% of all counsellors. The conference attracted 38 counsellors, 79% of all counsellors. This high attendance demonstrated counsellors’ need for relevant professional development that recognised their seniority and also helped them assist Queensland Law Society members. An impressive line-up of presenters including Justice Margaret McMurdo AC and Judge Brad Farr spoke on important subjects such as:

• the judiciary’s perspective on solicitors’ duties to the court

• how to provide support to early career lawyers

• the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012

• modern technology and ethics• client legal privilege for in-house

and government lawyers.

Queensland Law Society senior counsellors now provide quarterly reports to quantify the number of inquiries received and describe the general content of inquiries. This information is used to inform our ethics offering and future professional development seminars. Specifics regarding practitioners and circumstances are not reported. The six months of data collected to date shows the Counsellors answered 84 calls on issues such as client legal privilege, costs and conduct of practice.

Members’ engagement sessions feedback

“The presentation was very relevant and practical.”

“It was one of the most interactive sessions we have had as part of our technical excellence program and clearly the audience was very much engaged.”



Our senior counsellors

We are grateful to our senior counsellors for their guidance and support of practitioners across Queensland. They provide a valued service for solicitors which also benefits the community. This list is also available on our website: qls.com.au > Becoming a member > Member benefits > Professional benefits > Senior counsellors > Find a senior counsellor.

• William (Bill) Loughnan, Thynne & Macartney

• Jeffrey Mann AM, McCullough Robertson

• Justin McDonnell, King & Wood Mallesons

• Wendy Miller, Damien Greer Lawyers

• Andrew Moloney, Moloney MacCallum Lawyers

• John Nagel, John Nagel & Co.• Thomas Nulty, DLA Piper Australia• Terence O’Gorman AM,

Robertson O’Gorman• Ross Perrett, Clayton Utz• William (Bill) Potts, Potts Lawyers• William (Bill) Purcell, Purcell

Chadwick & Skelly• Ronald (Jim) James Reaston,

O’Reilly Stevens Bovey Lawyers• John Stephen Rees, ReesLaw• Anthony Ryan, Payne Butler Lang• John Ryan, Whitsunday Law• John Shaw, Swanwick

Murray Roche• Garth Smith, Mellick

Smith & Associates• Thomas Sullivan,

Davidson & Sullivan• John Taylor, Taylors Solicitors• Chris Trevor, Chris Trevor

and Associates• Gregory Vickery AM,

Norton Rose Fulbright• Kathryn Walker, Walker Lawyers

• Peter Apel, Apels Solicitors• Rodney Barnes, JCU – Division of

Finance and Resource Planning• Russell Beer, MacDonnells Law• Michael Beirne, Barclay

Beirne Lawyers• Christopher Bowrey,

Wilson/Ryan/Grose• Mark Bray, Bradley & Bray• James Byrne, James

Byrne & Company• Peter Carne, Public Trust Office• Martin Conroy, Australian

Law Group• Peter Cooper, Cooper Grace Ward• Glen Cranny, Gilshenan &

Luton Legal Practice• Peter Eardley, Eardley Motteram• Peter Elliott, Giudes & Elliott• Anne English, Bottoms English• Paul Fallu, Dale & Fallu• Glenn Ferguson, Ferguson Cannon• Ross Forgione, Forgione Lawyers• Kurt Fowler, Fowler Lawyers• George Fox, Fox Bradfield Lawyers• Gary Hutchinson, Cooke

& Hutchinson• Vicki Jackson, South & Geldard• Peter Jolly, Thynne & Macartney• Warwick Jones, Jones

Mitchell Lawyers• Peter Kenny, Thynne & Macartney• Michael Klug, Clayton Utz• Ross Lee, Lee Lawyers

TJMF Psychological Wellbeing: Best Practice Guidelines for the Legal Profession launch

2014 President Ian Brown, Queensland Law Society CEO Noela L’Estrange,

Tristan Jepson Memorial Foundation co-founder Marie Jepson and HopgoodGanim

Managing Partner Bruce Humphrys



Providing ethical guidance

This year we supported members’ ethics education at 15 learning and professional development events, including regional intensives and government and early career lawyers conferences.

The Ethics Centre team responded to, and opened matters for, 3571 email and phone inquiries. This is a 31% increase, likely the result of ongoing member communication about our ethics advice services.

We raised the importance of Queensland Law Society’s ethics advice service and strengthened confidentiality expectations at the national level this year. The Office of General Counsel, assisted by Ethics Centre solicitors, successfully argued for public interest immunity to a federal agency to protect the identity and content of discussions with practitioners. This is now a matter of public record and our rationale is summarised here.

• Queensland Law Society’s Ethics Centre performs an important function in that it permits solicitors (whether members of the Society or not) to seek ethical guidance on how they should deal with an ethical issue arising during the course of their practice.

• This function is based on the solicitor being able to disclose information in a strictly confidential setting.

• The relationship between a solicitor and the Society’s officers (who are all solicitors) who provide this service can be said to be akin to a solicitor and client relationship.

• There is a clear public interest in a solicitor being able to seek independent guidance in situations where they are uncertain as to the course of action to be adopted in the discharge of their professional and ethical obligations.

• This style of service is of such fundamental importance that it is recognised as a permitted exception to the client confidence rule as stipulated in the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2012.

• Legal professional privilege is not lost simply because the solicitor makes such disclosure to the Society’s officers for the limited purpose of seeking ethical guidance. Further, such information is held on a strictly confidential basis by the Society and is securely stored (with very restricted access rights).

In addition to our advice service, the Ethics Centre website is another ready source of ethics information and advice. We had a significant upswing in website access this year, from 46,808 in 2012-13 to 68,319 in 2013-14 – a 46% increase. Apart from the homepage, the most frequently accessed pages were:

• Discipline Updates• Information on the Australian

Solicitors Conduct Rule 2012• Costs resources.

Our positive ethics inquiries and website results are due to the growing awareness of, and engagement with, ethics services through the law firm engagement program, high profile deliverables (the Costs Guide and ASCR Commentary) and regular features in Queensland Law Society publications.

Total views of our ethics FAQs have fallen 15% to 31,510, likely due to a reduced reliance on web-based information as we implemented an extensive education program this year. The top five most frequently accessed ethics FAQs are largely the same as last year, with one new addition regarding ‘letters of demand’.

Our Ethics Committee, which oversees our ethics program, spent a considerable period of time developing and finalising the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012 in Practice: A Commentary for Australian Legal Practitioners. The committee also approved the publication of a guidance note on referral fees, considered draft protocols for non-binding ethics rulings and the position of foreign-qualified lawyers, and established two standing sub-committees.

Ethics FAQ2013-14

unique visits

Change (+/-) from 2012-13

What are the rules about ‘Chinese walls’ (information barriers)?

2220 +423

What are the rules about letters of demand? 1645 +354

If a solicitor is abusive, uses bad language, or makes nasty or hurtful comments, is this a valid cause for complaint?

1510 -271

What are the exceptions to the duty of confidentiality?

1366 -43

What is the law on legal professional privilege? 1337 -110



Professional standards

This year our professional standards team supported members and good legal practice by conducting a comprehensive review of our regulatory correspondence, formalising our process for developing guidance statements and responsively managing trust account queries.

We guide and support our members

Queensland Law Society provides members with advice on complex or sensitive professional issues to give them confidence in practice and ensure consistent application of appropriate professional standards. The scope and nature of this role, endorsed by Queensland Law Society’s Council, is an important part of our service to solicitors and the community. In 2013-14, our professional standards, ethics and advocacy teams began a process for researching and publishing guidance statements (previously known as guidance notes). The process ensures regular assessment of members’ needs and the legislative and practice landscape for more comprehensive advice on potential issues.

Previously developed on an as-needs basis, review of the possible need for guidance statements is now discussed at every policy committee meeting. This need is assessed by our professional standards and ethics experts who, together with the policy committee, manage production of the guidance statement. The Legal Services Commission has indicated it will participate in this process. The finalised guidance is communicated to the profession through our website, publications, committees and compliance reviewers. Members will start receiving regular guidance statements in 2014-15.

We communicate clearly to our members

This year we conducted a significant review of our regulatory correspondence – the first since the introduction of the Legal Profession Act 2004. Since that time, our templates have been updated on an ad hoc basis, but in the 10th anniversary year of the Act, we completed assessment of most of our 250 standardised pieces of correspondence.

Clear communication to our members on their professional standards obligations is imperative as advice received can significantly affect practice administration and legal issue management. The review modernises the language in our templates, and ensures our correspondence is legislatively up to date, consistent and communicated clearly. Members have since benefited from receiving information and counsel that is understandable, practical and unambiguous.

The review will be completed in July 2014.

Unr

estr

icte

d pr

inci

pal

Unr

estr

icte

d em

ploy

ee

Unr

estr

icte

d vo

lunt

eer

Res

tric

ted

prin

cipa

l

Res

tric

ted

empl

oyee

Res

tric

ted

volu

ntee

r

Oth

er P

C/T

rave

lling

PC

Lim

ited

prin

cipa

l

Fore

ign

law

291227.6%

527149.9%

320.3%

205119.4%

1951.8% 22

0.2%11

0.1%

610.6%0

0.0%

Practising certificates issued 2013-14The greatest practising certificate (PC) growth was in unrestricted employee PCs, up 10%, which agrees with our membership growth figures for those with 6 or more years’ experience. There has been 2.9% growth in principal PCs, in line with growth in micro-sized firms. Restricted employee PCs fell by 5.9%, potentially indicating more early career lawyers finishing their period of post-admission supervision.

Members’ trust account investigations feedback

“Well organised and offered a practical practice suggestion I have adopted.”

“The audit was appreciated. The response received is very helpful in assisting in bringing the practice into perfect alignment with legislative requirements. Thank you.”

“I believe it is important (and appropriate given that QLS is for the most part dealing with its own members) that the experience for the practitioner be a positive one as far as possible, by using the opportunity to point out any unmet requirements and making suggestions for the simplest and most economical ways to ensure compliance.”

Members’ compliance review feedback

“The Auditor was also a lawyer who had been in practice and I believe this helped, significantly, in the process.”

“The review process was very beneficial and assisted in answering queries.”



We are responsive to members’ needs and practice requirements

Our phone and email inquiries rose from 4506 last year to 4913, a 9% increase. Many are time critical as they involve issues such as trust account management, the definition of trust money, advice on how to account for it, when it can be used and the legislated process for moving trust money. We are pleased to report that 98% of inquiries received a same-day turnaround.

The increase in inquiries is due to our comprehensive assessment of all law practices’ trust accounts. This year we conducted fewer compliance reviews, 294 in 2013-14 compared to 444 the previous year, but more investigations, 187 compared to 105 last year, as a result of this assessment. By their nature, investigations are more labour intensive than compliance reviews, hence the fall in reviews conducted this year.

The assessment is conducted every 2-3 years during the practising certificate renewal period when practices submit Law Practice Declarations and Trust Money Statements. Law practices that don’t have a trust account are ‘investigated’ as there is no trust account for which to conduct a compliance review. We investigated 44 practices that did not have trust accounts, the outcome of which was a compliance check to help them complete the necessary arrangements.

Members scored both our compliance review and investigations teams highly in terms of their satisfaction of our service. Our compliance reviews and investigations each rated an average 4.8 out of 5. More positive feedback is available on pages 51 and 52.

We appointed receivers and trust money supervisors in 13 instances due to practitioners passing away, going out of business as a result of bankruptcy or a determination that the trust account required supervision.

This means that law firm funds cannot be removed from a trust account without Queensland Law Society approval. Supervisions are generally in place for an average two years.

Shoring up member education delivered through the inquiry service, compliance reviews and investigations, we presented our annual trust account refresher, which exceed its delegate target and received a 4.4 member satisfaction rating, and conducted four panel sessions at practice management workshops in 2013.

We give back to the community (literally)

This year we conducted a special project to distribute old trust balances from the Queensland Law Society’s Receivers’ Account. The Receivers’ Account was an amalgamation of monies from the trust accounts of firms placed in external intervention. It ceased being used on 1 July 2004 with the commencement of the Legal Profession Act 2004.

The project involved disbursing funds from 31 trust accounts containing 470 trust ledger balances, totalling $239k. Entitled persons and, when we could not locate a beneficial owner, the Public Trustee, received the funds. We will keep trying to locate the owners of monies held until all avenues are exhausted, at which time the funds are handed to the Public Trustee for safekeeping.

The project had two additional outcomes: we distributed 90 balances in trust accounts not included in the Receivers’ Account representing $72k in payments and recovered $142k from instances where funds in a trust ledger were held for practitioners’ costs and outlays (part of their receivership costs).

Queensland solicitors pay an annual Fidelity Guarantee Fund levy which is the main source of income for the Fidelity Guarantee Fund. This ensures the fund is resourced to reimburse people subjected to financial loss from improper law associate

conduct that results in law practice default or trust account fraud.

In 2013-14 there were 12 new potential Fidelity Guarantee Fund claims, 71% fewer than last year, with total payments estimated to be $165k with the statutory cap limit. This is a reduction of 27 files and $1.06m in estimated payments compared to 2012-13. The fund paid 55 claims, totalling $1.42m and refused three.

As at 30 June 2014, the balance of the fund was $23.58m an increase of $5.78m on the previous year. The fund’s income of $4.57m is $470k more than 2012-13. Income includes $3.51m in practitioner contributions and $920k in interest.

Legal Services Commission investigations

Queensland Law Society conducts investigations at the Legal Services Commission’s delegation for complex matters or those requiring legal practitioner insight. We returned recommendations on 210 investigations this year, 55% fewer than 2012-13. There were 40 reported instances where the commission’s determination diverged from Queensland Law Society’s recommendation. Of these, the majority of divergence was the result of the commission deciding it was not in the public interest to prosecute. There were no instances of Queensland Law Society recommending against prosecution and the commission disagreeing with this.

Members who are the subject of a complaint can access three hours of free legal advice. In the last 12 months, 97 solicitors used this service. From 1 July 2014 we are increasing this service offering, enabling members to access six hours of free legal advice.

We thank members of the Professional Conduct Committee who spend many hours reviewing investigators’ recommendations prior to returning them to the Legal Services Commission for action.

Members’ compliance review feedback

“Happily we are fully compliant, so the process did not point out any deficiencies … the process indeed identified where we are absolutely doing the right thing, which was helpful to know.”



Resilience

Mental health is a serious issue for the future viability of the legal profession. If it is not addressed, it may result in accelerated early and mid-career attrition rates and a reduction in the profession’s numbers, knowledge and talent. Considering the growth of the profession in the younger age brackets – 73% of Queensland Law Society members are Generation X or Y – this could have serious ramifications.

In 2013-14 Queensland Law Society implemented a number of new initiatives in response to this risk including:

• forming the Flexibility Working Group to research and assess workplace flexibility arrangements and issues, and communicating these to the profession

• developing the Resilience Working Group, whose purpose is to raise awareness of the causes of mental health issues in the profession across different career stages, and the steps that can be taken to prevent or address these issues as they arise

• launching and adopting the Tristan Jepson Memorial Foundation’s Best Practice Guidelines for Legal Practitioners

• establishing a mentoring program for early career lawyers

• working with the Law Council of Australia on outcomes of their National Attrition and Re-engagement Study (NARS)

• instituting formally-trained Mental Health First Aid Officers for Queensland Law Society staff (see page 62).

We also continued to provide members, their staff and families with counselling support services through LawCare.

Flexibility Working Group

Flexible work arrangements include any arrangement that differs from the traditional workday, the standard work week, or the traditional workplace. Flexibility means allowing an employee some input and control over how they would like to manage their time in order to achieve what the business requires of them. The members of the Flexibility Working Group represent a cross section of legal practice in Queensland,

including medium-sized and large law firms, government, and in-house. The working group’s aims are:

• for employees and supervisors to explore flexible work arrangements

• to provide tools and support to people considering and negotiating flexible work arrangements

• to empower employees to open a dialogue with a supervisor or manager.

To this end, the group conducts research and gathers content for sharing with the profession through Queensland Law Society’s Proctor magazine. Recent articles include My flexibility story: Mismanaged return from maternity leave ends in resignation (March 2014) and another from a senior lawyer in a boutique firm on successful flexibility practices (May 2014). The Flexibility Working Group also works closely with the Equalising Opportunities in the Law Committee on policy issues.

Resilience Working Group

The Resilience Working Group involves Queensland Law Society members, resilience thought leaders and members of Queensland Law Society’s leadership team working together to review, research and look at developing practical support on:

• the causes of depression in the profession

• steps to address the issue• best practice workplace

approaches for treatment and prevention.

The working group was instrumental in the Tristan Jepson Memorial Foundation’s best practice guidelines’ Queensland launch and work closely with both our Learning and Professional Development team on seminar content and our Marketing and Engagement team on publication material.

“On behalf of the Board of the Tristan Jepson Memorial Foundation, I wish to express our appreciation and thanks to Noela L’Estrange and Queensland Law Society for their ongoing support, demonstration of leadership by becoming a

founding signatory to the Psychological Wellbeing: Best Practice Guidelines for the Legal Profession, commitment to encourage their ongoing implementation in Queensland and partnering with us to change the legal workplace culture.”

Marie Jepson, Co-founder, Tristan Jepson Memorial Foundation



Tristan Jepson Memorial Foundation’s Best Practice Guidelines for the Legal Profession

The Tristan Jepson Memorial Foundation’s Best Practice Guidelines for the Legal Profession provide a guide to help law firms’ structure and measure the environment in which people work and the firm’s approach to mental health support for solicitors.

Queensland Law Society is now a signatory to the guidelines, hosting the statewide launch and promoting adoption of the guidelines to our members. The guidelines enable law firms to assess their workplace practices against 13 psychosocial factors and determine – depending on their resources, workplace size and risk profile – the level they wish to attain, ranging from basic to best practice. We are pleased to report that assessed against these factors, Queensland Law Society’s internal culture, policies and practices are already on the way to best practice.

We hope to inspire all law-based workplaces – our 1688 law firms, those with in-house counsel and government departments – to sign on, and congratulate those who already have:

• Best Wilson Buckley Family Law • Brisbane Family Law Centre• Allens• Ashurst• Henry Davis York• Herbert Smith Freehills• HopgoodGanim• K & L Gates• King & Wood Mallesons• Leighton Construction• Murdoch Family Lawyers • Norton Rose Fulbright• Queensland Association of

Independent Legal Services Inc • Tresscox• Westpac.

Mentoring program

This year we piloted our mentoring program to support members seeking guidance from more experienced legal practitioners who have a specific skill set, or firm or practice experience. The role of Queensland Law Society mentors is to help ‘mentees’ to:

• develop knowledge and skills to develop their chosen career path

• clarify their goals and define strategies and actions to meet those goals

• assist their understanding of how the legal profession is changing and how they might best take advantage of these opportunities.

The program offers a formal support structure that also allows participants to organically grow their relationships. It includes:

• a matching service to help mentees connect with the best available mentor for their unique circumstances

• guidance and training for both mentors and mentees on how to establish, progress and end the mentoring relationship

• Myers Briggs Type Indicator Step II™ Interpretive Report for mentors and mentees outlining individual preferences

• eight formal sessions per annum, conducted face to face, by phone or Skype.

We now have 13 mentor-mentee pairings, which is more than the original target of 10. The majority of mentors were sole practitioners and the majority of mentees were from small firms. We are pleased with the program’s results so far and will assess the pilot for fuller implementation in 2014-15.

Law Council of Australia’s NARS

Queensland Law Society developed detailed responses to the Law Council of Australia’s NARS discussion paper. We are proud to say we could respond with specific policies and practices applied to our member services, member relations and workplace regarding the five key areas of need:

1. Career path transformation2. Leadership and role modelling3. Relationships and support4. Workplace safety5. Transparency and

measures of success.

We will communicate the finalised outcomes to members in the coming year, and work on further developments to help members.

More small firm staff access LawCare counselling

LawCare provides free, confidential counselling services to Queensland Law Society members, their immediate family and legal support staff for workplace and personal concerns. This year 426 people contacted LawCare. This is 24% more than in 2012-13, which could indicate greater awareness of mental health issues, and a year of added stress on finances and employment concerns. In contrast to last year, the majority of members accessing the service, 37%, were from medium-sized law firms. Medium-sized firms are caught between large firms’ economies of scale and small boutique firms’ flexible services and billing methods while expected to deliver the best of both worlds to all clients. Certainly this is demonstrated in the top three workplace issues identified by LawCare as being operational demands, and, in a change from last year, issues with organisational climate taking precedence over workplace conflict. The majority of calls were, however, about private matters with a 27:73 split between calls about workplace and personal concerns.

Documents

Leading our profession - Queensland Law Society · Leading our profession 40 Queensland Law Society | Annual report 2013.14 Results of a new strategic approach 2013-14 heralded a