I refer to the article by Peter Mericka entitled “Conveyancing and unqualified practice” contained in the July 2004 LIJ, pages 55-57, and to Russell Cocks’ letter entitled “Muddying the conveyancing waters” (“Unsolicited”, September 2004 LIJ, page 8).
To quote Peter Mericka in his article (page 57), “Regulators have been reluctant to require compliance with the Legal Practice Act with the result that unqualified legal practice in this industry is the norm”.
It seems to me unqualified practice is rife in the conveyancing industry. What was the result of the Legal Practice Board’s review (refer July 2004 LIJ, page 56)? What is being done to stamp out unqualified practice?
Grant Sturgeon
Non-practising lawyer
Editor’s note: The LIV is vigilant about unqualified persons who engage in legal practice.
Section 316 of the Legal Practice Act 1996 authorises the Legal Practice Board and the LIV to apply to the Supreme Court for an injunction restraining a person from engaging in legal practice, or representing or advertising that they are qualified to engage in legal practice.
The LIV has made several applications for injunctions pursuant to the section. The injunction power is the only one available to the LIV under the Legal Practice Act. The LIV has no power to regulate conveyancers generally.
The Legal Practice Act provides limited powers to the Legal Practice Board to regulate conveyancers.
Last month, Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls and Minister for Consumer Affairs John Lenders announced the terms of reference for a review of the regulation of Victoria’s conveyancing industry. The terms of reference include assessment of the current regime to determine what risks consumers face, including the administration of consumer and third party funds, complaints handling and public confidence in the system, consideration of a consistent national approach across the states and review of the definition of “legal work” and “conveyancing work” in the Legal Practice Act 1996. Comment will be sought from stakeholders on a discussion paper to be released early next year.
The review arises out of the recent collapse of a company in Geelong where several million dollars of client money has been lost.
LIJ Dec 04
BH - So how has the case against Maric advanced the cause? especially given the Review of the Conveyancing Industry was already underway in the year 2004 and the outcome which was not unexpected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
unbelievable that a organsiation such as the LIV could not have the forsight to see the end result NSW had licensed Conveyancers from 1995 and the other states have had them for years. It was certainly Victorian thinking... whatever the reason there is no justification for the money spent whoever is paying for it and the likely result given that the government review was particularly to look at the legal work and conveyancing work distinction. sound a bit like left hand and right hand at the LIV..Why would you appeal after the new act was passed allowing conveyancers to do more than under the previous act. And in any event why would you appeal an injunction case and not a case involving an offence if what you wanted was a court ruling. It seems as though the practice board and now the service board could see the likely result but not those people at the LIV who cant get past their self interest..
Thankfully Victoria now has independant regulators.
Post a Comment