Lawyers say WA Legal Practice Board is destroying their lives

West Australian lawyers say their own regulator is causing them psychological harm, and in some cases destroying their lives, in a scathing rebuke of the watchdog tasked with keeping the industry on track.

Five peak legal bodies in WA say they are not being properly regulated by the state's Legal Practice Board, which decides who is allowed to practice law and handles complaints about lawyers' conduct.

Their concerns led to a parliamentary inquiry into the board and its role in regulating the profession.

In a stunning joint submission to that inquiry published on Friday, the group called for "urgent action" to address what they describe as "an unprecedented loss of confidence" in the board.

"When regulation presents a barrier to efficient and effective practice, access to justice is impaired, and trust and confidence in the system breaks down," they wrote.

Their submission, which stretches for hundreds of pages and includes dozens of case studies, describes "chronic delays" across much of the board's work, "inappropriate and highly damaging investigation and prosecution processes" and a "failure to engage, communicate and respond to enquiries and applications".

For its part, the board has acknowledged there had been "operational shortcomings" in the past but said "significant progress has been made" in recent years.

'Lives are being destroyed'

The peak bodies' most strident criticisms were reserved for the board's approach to investigating and disciplining lawyers accused of falling short of the high standards to which they are held, which it said was "actively causing considerable harm".

The group described an "overly aggressive, persecutorial and punitive" approach by the board, including suspending practitioners without a hearing or any misconduct finding, and "expanding and escalating" complaints.

"We are told this is causing damage and psychological injury to members of the profession," the group wrote.

"This reported damage ranges from exacerbating already high stress levels and mental health issues, to directly causing anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidal thoughts.

The submission relays complaints from Law Society members that the board lacked procedural fairness, and in some instances communicated in a way that was "unprofessional, discourteous or overly aggressive".

'No utility in being nice'

The board's response was submitted the same day as the peak bodies', and so could not directly address the issues raised, but it did argue that its performance "ought not be measured by the feedback of those who feel aggrieved" but by "overall regulatory outcomes".

"Isolated events or anecdotes of practitioner dissatisfaction are not grounds for structural reform," its submission reads.

"The legal profession requires a regulator that is independent, firm, proportionate and mindful of impacts on all parties, but with the overarching public interest at the heart of its purpose and execution."

But the board did acknowledge that it "needs to be aware that human beings are impacted by its decisions".

"It should be appropriately responsive and accessible but there is no utility in being 'nice'," the submission reads.

To improve its performance, it had increased its Investigation and Legal team and was continuing recruitment, and efforts included "providing communication training for staff".

'Ghost organisation'

The organisations also complained about the board's lack of communication and long delays in making decisions — with one survey respondent describing it as a "ghost organisation".

Lawyers also reported having to follow up with the board multiple times to receive a response, with repeated phone calls and emails often not responded to.

A recently-admitted solicitor was recorded as telling a survey: "If legal practitioners were to treat corresponding with clients in the way the [board] does, the [board] would admonish their behaviour."

The submission also included reports of documents containing personal information being sent to the wrong lawyer, and lawyers having to prove they had paid board fees.

The board acknowledged its emails accounts "were not consistently monitored, resulting in backlogs, lost emails, delayed responses and inconsistent inbox management across teams", but said a new system had since been implemented.

It would also soon expand its phone lines from two to 20, and said renewals for lawyers' practising certificates were being issued faster this year than last year.

Hacker problem

The board was hacked in May, with 6,000 people notified their data may have been stolen, which the board said caused delays.

But all submissions wanted the legal industry to continue to self-regulate, rather than handing that power to outsiders.

Its most recent annual report showed the board had more than $12.5 million in financial reserves in June 2024, up from $11 million in June 2023.

That led the Law Society to question whether lawyers who paid fees were getting value for money.

"Since the board's income is derived from mandatory levies on the legal profession, the profession has the right to understand why the board believes this is a proper use of money," it wrote.

The issue was not addressed in the board's submission, but in an earlier annual report it noted the requirement for "financial stability" to ensure it could meet its purpose of regulating the legal profession.