HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-02-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:12): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Attorney-General questions in relation to legal practitioners in South Australia.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I understand that Western Australia and South Australia indicated recently a lack of support for national legal regulation at the COAG meeting on 13 February. I understand that South Australia will be implementing its own legal profession regulations. The Attorney-General has outlined a number of reasons why he is objecting to the proposed legislation and, whilst I will not proffer an opinion, all of that seems sound enough to us.

Family First has been working with victims of the Magarey Farlam Trust Account theft for several years now, and I indicate that some have expressed disappointment to me that the focus has been on the concerns of the legal profession in opposing the national regulations rather than insisting upon a better scheme to protect victims of trust account fraud.

Many of these victims were forced to endure a needless 21-month asset freeze and three needless Supreme Court cases, during which all interest earned on their assets was stripped before their assets and remaining assets were returned, even if they had nothing stolen from their accounts. My questions are:

1. Will the Attorney-General immediately reveal his intentions for independently reforming the legal regulatory system in South Australia, including measures that will at least:

(a) end the draconian fund of last resort system that operates under the Legal Practitioners Act since 1981; and

(b) ensure that, if a situation similar to Magarey Farlam occurred again, compensation would be more readily available and more attainable by clients?

2. Will the Attorney-General provide the following data:

(a) the amount of interest stripped annually and in total from clients' assets held in lawyers' trust accounts since the Legal Practitioners Act was established; and

(b) the amounts paid annually and in total during that period to each of the various services and organisations that are nominated as recipients of those funds, especially the Legal Services Commission, community legal services, the Legal Practitioners Education and Admissions Council, the Law Foundation, the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board, the Professional Standards Branch of the Law Society of South Australia, and the Legal Practitioners Guarantee Fund;

(c) the number of claims made since the act was proclaimed against the guarantee fund annually and in total, by type of claim and the amounts paid annually, and in total for each type of claim and for each particular case and claim;

(d) full details of all costs incurred by the Attorney-General and his agencies (that is, the government and its agencies), the Law Society of South Australia and its representatives, the Law Society appointed supervisor for the Magarey Farlam lawyers' trust accounts following their $4.5 million fraud case, and by the supervisor's agents and representatives; and

(e) the amount each of Magarey Farlam's victims claimed against and was paid from the guarantee fund for their costs of proceedings and the civil proceedings brought by the supervisor to determine the method of distributing the remaining assets in the firm's trust account?

3. Finally, will the Attorney-General confirm or deny that the total legal fees in this case have now surpassed the total amount stolen in the initial circumstance, representing some $4.5 million?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for Gambling) (15:15): I thank the honourable member for that wide-ranging question that covered many aspects of the Attorney-General's portfolio. I am certainly aware, in relation to national legal profession reform, that it is a matter that has been discussed at COAG and at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. There is another meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in a fortnight or so, but I am not sure whether or not that matter will be discussed there.

South Australia certainly expressed some concern in relation to the proposed national legal profession model, in particular regarding the registration process for lawyers and monitoring the conduct and professional standards and so on within the legal profession. There is a concern, as I understand it, that that matter should be in the hands of a national body rather than at the local level, and that is a matter of concern to many people within the profession and, indeed, to those they serve. I am not sure what will happen at the next Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and whether that will be further discussed, but I can certainly find out when it happens.

In relation to what will happen if no national accommodation is reached, my understanding is that the government would then seek to introduce a legal profession bill in South Australia. However, that will be a matter for my colleague in the other place (the Attorney-General), and I would think that if the national model were not adopted it would be necessary to have some reform of our own legal profession oversight and governance. In relation to the issues that the honourable member raises regarding Magarey Farlam, I am not aware of them but I will refer them to the Attorney-General in the other place.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT