{"id":"legal-profession-uniform-law-application-accreditation-rules-2022","name":"Legal Profession Uniform Law Application (Accreditation) Rules 2022","slug":"legal-profession-uniform-law-application-accreditation-rules-2022","collection":"regulation","jurisdiction":"wa","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":178513,"registerId":"wa-legal-profession-uniform-law-application-accreditation-rules-2022-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-05","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Legal Profession Uniform Law Application (Accreditation) Rules 2022","content":"![Crest]()Western Australia\n\nLegal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022\n\nLegal Profession Uniform Law Application (Accreditation) Rules 2022\n\nWestern Australia\n\nLegal Profession Uniform Law Application (Accreditation) Rules 2022\n\nContents\n\n1. Citation 1\n\n2. Commencement 1\n\n3. Terms used 1\n\n4. Board may accredit person as QA provider 2\n\n5. Board may accredit person in relation to provision of particular legal education activity 2\n\n6. Board may accredit person in relation to completion of particular legal education activity not provided by another person 3\n\n7. Board may accredit person as PMC provider 4\n\n8. Applications for accreditation 4\n\n9. Conditions of accreditation 4\n\n10. Notice of accreditation or refusal to accredit 5\n\n11. Variation and revocation 5\n\n12. Guidelines relating to practice management courses 5\n\nNotes\n\nCompilation table 7\n\nDefined terms\n\n  \n\nLegal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022\n\nLegal Profession Uniform Law Application (Accreditation) Rules 2022\n\n##### 1. Citation\n\n\t\tThese rules are the *Legal Profession Uniform Law Application (Accreditation) Rules 2022*.\n\n##### 2. Commencement\n\nThese rules come into operation on the day on which the *Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022* section 125 comes into operation.\n\n##### 3. Terms used\n\nIn these rules —\n\naccreditation period, in relation to accreditation under rule 4(1), 5(2)(b) or 7(1), means the period —\n\n(a) beginning on the day specified in the notice of accreditation under rule 10(2)(b)(i); and\n\n(b) ending at the end of the period specified in the notice of accreditation under rule 10(2)(b)(ii);\n\ncontinuing professional development activity has the meaning given in section 125(1) of the Act;\n\nexcluded activity has the meaning given in section 125(1) of the Act;\n\nlegal education activity —\n\n(a) means —\n\n(i) a continuing professional development activity; or\n\n(ii) another activity or course consisting of legal education or training;\n\nbut\n\n(b) does not include an excluded activity or a practice management course;\n\nPMC provider means a person in relation to whom accreditation under rule 7(1) is in effect;\n\npractice management course means a continuing professional development activity (other than an excluded activity), or other legal education or training, consisting of a course in practice management;\n\nQA provider means a person in relation to whom accreditation under rule 4(1) is in effect.\n\n##### 4. Board may accredit person as QA provider\n\n(1) The Board may, on application, grant accreditation to a person as a QA provider.\n\n(2) A QA provider is accredited in relation to the provision of any legal education activity in the accreditation period.\n\n(3) The Board may audit, or cause to be audited, a QA provider in relation to the provision by the QA provider of professional development activities or other legal education or training.\n\n##### 5. Board may accredit person in relation to provision of particular legal education activity\n\n(1) The Board may, on application, grant accreditation to a person in relation to a particular legal education activity (the relevant legal education activity) provided, or to be provided, by the person.\n\n(2) Accreditation under subrule (1) may relate to —\n\n(a) the provision of the relevant legal education activity on a single occasion only; or\n\n(b) the provision of the relevant legal education activity on several occasions in the accreditation period.\n\n(3) An application under subrule (1) may be made by —\n\n(a) the person to be accredited; or\n\n(b) an Australian legal practitioner who has completed, or intends to complete, the relevant legal education activity.\n\n(4) A person accredited under subrule (1) is accredited in relation to —\n\n(a) for accreditation referred to in subrule (2)(a) — the provision of the relevant legal education activity on a single occasion only; or\n\n(b) for accreditation referred to in subrule (2)(b) — the provision of the relevant legal education activity in the accreditation period.\n\n(5) Without limiting rule 8, an application for accreditation under subrule (1) must specify the field or category under the Continuing Professional Development Rules to which the relevant legal education activity is proposed to be assigned.\n\n##### 6. Board may accredit person in relation to completion of particular legal education activity not provided by another person\n\n(1) The Board may, on application, grant accreditation to a person in relation to a particular legal education activity completed, or to be completed, by the person.\n\n(2) Accreditation under subrule (1) can be granted only in relation to a legal education activity of a kind that is not provided to a person by another person.\n\n(3) A person accredited under subrule (1) is accredited in relation to the completion of the particular legal education activity only.\n\n(4) Without limiting rule 8, an application for accreditation under subrule (1) must specify the field or category under the Continuing Professional Development Rules to which the legal education activity is proposed to be assigned.\n\n##### 7. Board may accredit person as PMC provider\n\n(1) The Board may, on application, grant accreditation to a person as a PMC provider.\n\n(2) A PMC provider is accredited in relation to the provision of practice management courses in the accreditation period.\n\n(3) In deciding whether to grant accreditation to a person under subrule (1), the Board must have regard to whether, in the Board’s opinion, the practice management course or courses to be provided by the person will satisfy the requirements of the guidelines published under rule 12.\n\n(4) The Board may audit, or cause to be audited, a PMC provider in relation to the provision by the PMC provider of practice management courses.\n\n##### 8. Applications for accreditation\n\nAn application for accreditation under these rules must —\n\n(a) be in the local approved form; and\n\n(b) include information addressing the criteria set out in the local approved form; and\n\n(c) include any other information or documents required by the local approved form; and\n\n(d) be accompanied by any fee the Board charges under section 33(2)(e) of the Act in respect of the application.\n\n##### 9. Conditions of accreditation\n\nThe Board may grant accreditation to a person under these rules subject to any conditions the Board considers appropriate.\n\n##### 10. Notice of accreditation or refusal to accredit\n\n(1) The Board must give an applicant for accreditation under these rules written notice of the Board’s decision on the application.\n\n(2) If the decision is to grant accreditation to the person, the notice must specify —\n\n(a) any conditions to which the accreditation is subject under rule 9; and\n\n(b) for accreditation under rule 4(1), 5(2)(b) or 7(1) —\n\n(i) the day on which the accreditation comes into effect, which may be earlier than the day on which it is granted; and\n\n(ii) the period for which the accreditation has effect.\n\n##### 11. Variation and revocation\n\n(1) The Board may at any time vary the conditions of an accreditation granted under these rules, including by imposing additional conditions.\n\n(2) The Board may at any time revoke an accreditation granted under these rules.\n\n(3) The Board must give written notice of a variation under subrule (1) or revocation under subrule (2) to the accredited person.\n\n##### 12. Guidelines relating to practice management courses\n\n(1) The Board must publish guidelines setting out requirements in relation to practice management courses.\n\n(2) Guidelines under subregulation (1) may include requirements relating to the following —\n\n(a) the content of a practice management course;\n\n(b) the structure of a practice management course;\n\n(c) assessment methods to be used in respect of a practice management course;\n\n(d) resources and materials to be provided to participants in a practice management course;\n\n(e) support services to be provided to participants in a practice management course;\n\n(f) availability of a practice management course;\n\n(g) any other matter relevant to the provision of a practice management course.\n\n(3) The Board must ensure that the guidelines are available on the Board’s website.\n\n![]()\n\nNotes\n\nThis is a compilation of the *Legal Profession Uniform Law Application (Accreditation) Rules 2022*. For provisions that have come into operation see the compilation table.\n\nCompilation table\n\n| **Citation** | **Published** | **Commencement** |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| *Legal Profession Uniform Law Application (Accreditation) Rules 2022* | SL 2022/112   30 Jun 2022 | 1 Jul 2022 (see r. 2 and SL 2022/113 cl. 2) |\n\n\nDefined terms\n\n*[This is a list of terms defined and the provisions where they are defined. The list is not part of the law.]*\n\n**Defined term Provision(s)**\n\naccreditation period 3\n\ncontinuing professional development activity 3\n\nexcluded activity 3\n\nlegal education activity 3\n\nPMC provider 3\n\npractice management course 3\n\nQA provider 3\n\nrelevant legal education activity 5(1)\n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Scope cannot be assessed — the legislative text was not retrievable. No comparison between original intent and final form is possible based on the available information."},"complexity_factors":["Insufficient content was retrieved to assess true complexity — the page returned an error, not legislative text","Based on title alone, accreditation rules are typically procedural and moderately technical but not highly complex","Complexity score is nominal only and cannot be reliably determined without the actual text"],"plain_english_summary":"This instrument sets out Western Australia’s rules for accreditation under the Legal Profession Uniform Law, establishing how legal practitioners and practices are recognised as accredited under that uniform framework. It affects lawyers, law firms and legal service providers seeking formal accreditation in WA and matters for professional eligibility, standards and cross‑jurisdictional recognition."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"These Rules implement the Board’s accreditation powers under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act and do not materially expand the scope of regulatory authority beyond the Act’s intent. The instrument confines itself to procedural and definitional matters for accreditation (types of accreditation, application form and fee, conditions, notices, audit powers and publication of guidelines) and does not introduce new substantive regulatory regimes or powers beyond those provided or implied by the Act (see the cross‑reference to section 125 in rule 3 and the fee power in rule 8(d))."},"complexity_factors":["Short instrument with 12 rules and a definitions section (rule 3).","4 distinct accreditation pathways (rules 4–7) requiring different scope and applicant types.","7 defined terms listed in the rules (accreditation period, continuing professional development activity, excluded activity, legal education activity, PMC provider, practice management course, QA provider).","Cross‑references to the Act (section 125 for definitions; s.33(2)(e) for fee power) increasing dependency on external legislation.","Discretionary powers for the Board to impose conditions, vary or revoke accreditations (rules 9–11) add operational complexity.","Guidelines for practice management courses (rule 12) allow detailed requirements to be layered outside the instrument, creating deferred complexity.","Audit powers (rules 4(3), 7(4)) introduce compliance and procedural considerations not specified in detail."],"plain_english_summary":"**What these rules do (mechanics)**\n\n- Establish how the Legal Practice Board (the Board) in Western Australia may accredit providers and activities that count as legal education under the Uniform Law application Act (the Act).\n- Create four accreditation pathways:\n  - Accreditation of a person as a QA (quality assurance) provider (rule 4). A QA provider is accredited to deliver any legal education activity during the stated accreditation period and may be audited (rule 4(2)–(3)).\n  - Accreditation of a person in relation to a particular legal education activity (rule 5). This can be for a single occasion or several occasions within the accreditation period; applications may be made by the provider or by an Australian practitioner who will do the activity (rule 5(1)–(4)). The application must state the CPD field/category for the activity (rule 5(5)).\n  - Accreditation of a person for completion of a particular legal education activity that is not provided to them by another person (rule 6). This is limited to activities of that unique kind and must state the CPD field/category (rule 6(1)–(4)).\n  - Accreditation of a person as a PMC (practice management course) provider (rule 7). PMC accreditation covers practice management courses in the accreditation period; the Board must consider whether proposed courses meet guidelines (rule 7(1)–(3)). PMC providers may also be audited (rule 7(4)).\n- Set minimum process and form requirements for applications (rule 8): use the local approved form, supply information that the form requires, and pay any application fee set under the Act (see rule 8(d), citing the fee power in s.33(2)(e) of the Act).\n- Allow the Board to impose conditions on accreditation, vary those conditions, or revoke accreditation; and require written notice to applicants or accredited persons about decisions, effective dates and accreditation periods (rules 9–11).\n- Require the Board to publish guidelines on practice management courses and make those available on its website; the guidelines may address content, structure, assessment, materials, support services, availability and other relevant matters (rule 12).\n- Define key terms used in the rules, including what counts as a legal education activity, practice management course, QA provider, PMC provider and accreditation period (rule 3).\n\n**Who is affected**\n\n- Providers of continuing professional development (CPD) and other legal education or training who wish their courses or status to be recognised by the Board (rules 4–7).\n- Individual Australian legal practitioners who undertake or seek recognition for particular legal education activities (rule 5(3)(b), rule 6).\n- The Legal Practice Board, which decides applications, sets conditions, conducts audits and publishes guidelines (rules 4–12).\n- Employers and law practices that rely on accredited providers or need staff to meet CPD/practice management requirements.\n\n**Why it matters (practical effects and the claimed purpose)**\n\n- The stated purpose (implicit in the structure and the Act reference) is to create an accreditation framework so legal education and practice‑management training can be recognised and quality‑assured for CPD compliance (see the Act cross‑reference at rule 3 and the Board’s guideline duties at rule 12).\n\n- How that purpose is achieved and what it costs:\n  - Quality oversight: The Board can audit accredited providers (rules 4(3), 7(4)), and set accreditation conditions (rule 9) and guidelines (rule 12). That creates a direct compliance and monitoring mechanism.\n  - Administrative and financial costs: Applicants must use the Board’s approved form and pay any fee the Board charges under the Act (rule 8(d)). Providers will bear the cost of preparing applications, meeting guideline requirements (rule 12), and responding to audits.\n  - Discretion and regulatory risk: The Board has broad discretion to grant, condition, vary or revoke accreditation (rules 9–11). The rules do not prescribe detailed merits criteria for most accreditations (apart from the requirement to have regard to the guidelines for PMC providers, rule 7(3)), so applicants face decision‑making discretion by the Board.\n  - Market effects: Accreditation is a gate for recognition. Accredited providers gain the right to supply recognized CPD/practice‑management courses during the accreditation period (rules 4(2), 5(4), 6(3), 7(2)). That can advantage accredited businesses in the market for legal education and affect practitioner choices about which courses to take. Smaller or informal providers may face higher barriers because of application, fee and audit requirements.\n\n**Who pays, who decides, what behaviour changes**\n\n- Who pays: Applicants and accredited providers pay application fees (rule 8(d)) and bear compliance and possible audit costs (rules 4(3), 7(4), rule 12 implementation costs).\n- Who decides: The Legal Practice Board decides accreditation, conditions, variations and revocations (rules 4–11); it also issues guidelines and publishes them (rule 12).\n- Behaviour changes induced: Providers will either seek accreditation to be recognised as CPD/PMC suppliers or avoid supplying accredited activities; providers will design courses to meet the Board’s guidelines and to survive potential audits; practitioners may prefer accredited offerings to ensure their CPD is accepted.\n\n**Trade‑offs, incentives and implementation risks**\n\n- Trade‑offs: The rules increase regulatory oversight and likely standardisation (through guidelines) at the cost of higher compliance and entry costs for providers.\n- Incentives: Accreditation creates an incentive for providers to meet Board standards; it also creates a market advantage for accredited providers and an incentive for applicants to align course design with published guidelines (rule 12).\n- Implementation risks and administrative discretion: The Board’s broad power to impose, vary and revoke conditions (rules 9–11) and the limited prescriptive criteria in the rules leave room for discretionary decision‑making and potential uncertainty for applicants.\n\n**Key mechanics to note (with rule citations)**\n\n- Multiple accreditation types: general QA provider (rule 4), activity‑specific provider (rule 5), individual completion when no other provider exists (rule 6), and PMC provider (rule 7).\n- Application must use the local approved form and pay any fee under the Act (rule 8(d)).\n- Accreditation periods are stated in the notice and defined in rule 3 and rule 10(2)(b).\n- Board must publish and host PMC guidelines on its website (rule 12(1) and (3))."},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[],"contradictions":[]},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"Unauthenticated. Configure AI_GATEWAY_API_KEY or use a provider module. Learn more: https://ai-sdk.dev/unauthenticated-ai-gateway","source":"analysis-cron"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The legislation remains tightly focused on its original purpose of establishing an accreditation framework for legal education providers. The three categories of accreditation (QA provider, specific activity provider, and PMC provider) represent a complete but contained scheme without scope creep into broader legal profession regulation."},"complexity_factors":["Short instrument (12 rules plus definitions)","Only 8 defined terms in the interpretation section","Simple conditional structure with minimal nesting (primarily 'if X then Y' logic)","Limited cross-referencing (mainly internal references to other rules within the same instrument)","Clear delineation between three distinct accreditation pathways (rules 4, 5, and 7)","No exceptions to exceptions or deeply nested subclauses","Straightforward administrative procedure (apply → assess → decide → notify)"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this legislation does:**\n\nThese rules set up a system for the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia to approve (accredit) people and organisations who provide legal training and professional development courses for lawyers.\n\n**Who it affects:**\n\n- **Legal training providers** – organisations or individuals who want to run courses that count towards lawyers' mandatory ongoing education requirements\n- **Lawyers** – who need to complete continuing professional development (CPD) to keep their practising certificates\n- **The Legal Practice Board** – which decides who gets approved and can audit providers\n\n**The three types of accreditation:**\n\n1. **QA provider** (Quality Assurance provider) – approved to run any legal education activity during their accreditation period\n2. **Specific activity accreditation** – approved to run one particular course, either once or multiple times\n3. **PMC provider** (Practice Management Course provider) – approved specifically to run practice management courses (required for lawyers who want to become principals of law firms)\n\n**Key features:**\n\n- Applications must use an approved form and pay a fee\n- The Board can attach conditions to any approval\n- The Board can audit providers to check they're doing the right thing\n- The Board must publish guidelines about what practice management courses must cover\n- Approvals can be varied or cancelled at any time\n\n**Why it matters:**\n\nLawyers in WA must complete ongoing training to keep their practising certificates. These rules ensure that the people providing that training meet quality standards and that the courses actually count towards lawyers' professional requirements. Without this accreditation system, lawyers might waste time and money on courses that don't meet their obligations."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/legal-profession-uniform-law-application-accreditation-rules-2022","history":"/api/acts/legal-profession-uniform-law-application-accreditation-rules-2022/history","analysis":"/api/acts/legal-profession-uniform-law-application-accreditation-rules-2022/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/legal-profession-uniform-law-application-accreditation-rules-2022/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/legal-profession-uniform-law-application-accreditation-rules-2022/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/legal-profession-uniform-law-application-accreditation-rules-2022/documents"}}