The transfer of disciplinary matters from QCAT to the Supreme Court will directly impact Queensland Law Society decisions about practising certificates, a public hearing was told in Brisbane yesterday.
The Justice, Integrity and Safety Community Committee heard from QLS CEO Matt Dunn and General Counsel Lauren Fitzgerald at the hearing into the Legal Profession (Strengthening Disciplinary Matters) Amendment Bill 2026 (the Bill).
The Bill’s objective is to give effect to the recommendations of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) Act Statutory Review 2025-26: Legal practitioner jurisdiction Report (October 2025). The Bill proposes to amend the Legal Profession Act 2007 to:
- transfer legal practitioner disciplinary jurisdiction from the QCAT to the Supreme Court, and
- transfer other related matters from QCAT to the Supreme Court.
The Bill also seeks to clarify the procedural arrangements applicable for the legal practitioner jurisdiction proceedings in the Supreme Court and the rules regarding costs.
Mr Dunn said QLS supported the shift of jurisdiction to help expedite disciplinary matters to resolution sooner.
He said delayed disciplinary matters took a significant toll on practitioners awaiting resolution of their matters and there were often very different perspectives about conduct matters that required adjudication.
Mr Dunn said the community, complainants and practitioners were best served by a disciplinary system which functioned in a timely way to bring resolution to everyone.
The Bill proposes the transfer of almost all of the legal practitioner jurisdiction which will directly involve QLS in terms of:
(a) the review of decisions by the Society which affect a person’s ability to practise in Queensland, including in relation to decisions about practising certificates; and
(b) the review of decisions in relation to claims made to the Legal Practitioners’ Fidelity Guarantee Fund (Fidelity Guarantee Fund).
“These reforms represent a fundamental shift in the character of these review proceedings, moving from an administrative merits review model in QCAT to a judicial appellate model in the Supreme Court,” the QLS submission stated.
The Society supported the removal of the requirement for parties to seek leave to be legally represented (section 43 of the QCAT Act) and the broad concepts carried over from QCAT, including procedural flexibility and the general approach to costs and appeals.
However, QLS is concerned about the absence of guidance in relation to costs, including the lack of statutory factors to guide the exercise of discretion and uncertainty regarding the applicable costs scale.
QLS is also concerned about practicalities for self-represented litigants in Fidelity Guarantee Fund matters. In particular, the Society highlighted the absence of clarity regarding forms, filing fees and procedural requirements, as well as the potential exposure to adverse costs orders assessed on the Supreme Court scale.
Mr Dunn said: “We are generally supportive of the transfer, but suggest some clarity be provided in relation to costs, including the addition of factors in the legislation to guide the exercise of the Court’s discretion.”
He said the Society’s support was consistent with the Thomas Review recommendations and reflected the seriousness of these matters and the Supreme Court’s supervisory role over the profession.
“Our submission focuses a small number of issues that might clarify intent and improve the operation of the new scheme once it commences,” he said.
“The first issue is the nature of review proceedings. The Bill moves a legal a number of matters from QCAT to the Supreme Court and provides for a fresh hearing with broad remedial powers.
“We see an opportunity to further clarify the intended nature of the review function – particularly whether the Court is to apply an administrative merits review approach or determine matters afresh in its original jurisdiction, consistent with Wakefield.
“Greater clarity on this point would assist parties and the Court in framing proceedings efficiently and could be addressed in the Bill or explanatory materials.”
In relation to costs, Mr Dunn said QLS supported the broad architecture of the Bill, including the clarification of disciplinary costs in line with Pennisi and the general approach that parties bear their own costs unless the interests of justice require otherwise.
“Our concern is that the Bill does not include guidance equivalent to the current QCAT provisions that help parties and decision-makers understand how discretion on costs should be exercised, or what scale may apply.”
The third issue was access to justice, particularly in Fidelity Guarantee Fund matters.
“Those matters can involve relatively modest claims and self-represented former clients. The move to the Supreme Court creates a need for clear forms, filing guidance, fee settings and procedural simplicity so that review rights remain practical and accessible.”
The committee is due to table its report on 3 July.
Share this article