Prescribed authority. The Act uses the term “prescribed authority” to denote a body designated by regulation to exercise certain statutory functions. The concept is functional: rather than naming the Law Society or Board directly in each provision, the Act delegates to the regulations the task of assigning responsibility. This allows the assignment to be adjusted without amending the primary legislation. The prescribed authority for a provision has the power to make decisions, give notices, impose conditions, and receive information as specified in that provision. The regulation does not define a single overarching “prescribed authority”; instead it creates two separate prescribed authorities with distinct portfolios.

The Law Society. This is a professional association of lawyers, but when acting as the prescribed authority it exercises statutory regulatory power, not merely representative functions. Under Schedule 1, the Law Society is responsible for: maintaining the roll of local lawyers (s 35), issuing, renewing, suspending, and cancelling local practising certificates (ss 42, 53, 65, 68), assessing suitability and imposing conditions (ss 43, 55, 56), managing show cause procedures (ss 72-74), handling appeals against its decisions (ss 84, 85), making legal profession rules (ss 221-228), administering trust account provisions (ss 251, 254, 260-272, 352-357), receiving reports of irregularities (s 254), appointing external examiners (s 265), approving ADIs for trust accounts (s 273), overseeing incorporated legal practices in relation to directors (ss 120, 134-138), receiving notices of commencement and termination of legal services (ss 115, 117), and participating in disciplinary processes (ss 432, 435, 446, 447, 452, 454, 457, 459, 480-482, 493, 497). It also has duties of confidentiality, reporting, and protection from liability (ss 602, 614, 649, 653, 655, 656). This list demonstrates the Society’s central role in the lifecycle of a legal practitioner.

The Board. The Board is a separate statutory body, likely the Legal Practice Board or similar. In the source it is referred to simply as “the Board”. Its prescribed functions are limited to five sections under Schedule 2. Section 106 gives the Board power to initiate show cause procedures for removal of a lawyer’s name from the local roll following foreign regulatory action. Sections 130 and 132 give the Board auditing powers over incorporated legal practices and the power to ban such practices from providing legal services. Section 133 allows the Board to disqualify a person from managing an incorporated legal practice. Section 158 gives the Board power to prohibit partnerships with partners who are not Australian legal practitioners. These are gatekeeping and enforcement functions focused on business structures rather than individual practitioners.

Distinction between the two authorities. The division is not arbitrary. The Law Society handles almost all functions concerning the person of the lawyer: their qualifications, practising certificate, conduct, trust accounts, and discipline. The Board handles structural and commercial aspects: the entity that employs the lawyer or that holds itself out as providing legal services. This bifurcation creates a regulatory architecture where the professional body manages individual professional standards, while a separate board oversees corporate and partnership structures that might otherwise escape professional regulation.

The regulation directly affects the Law Society and the Board, as they are the bodies now designated as prescribed authorities. Each must now exercise the functions listed in their respective schedule. This imposes operational obligations: the Law Society must maintain registers, process applications, investigate complaints, appoint examiners, and make rules. The Board must perform audits, issue bans, and manage disqualifications. In practice, both bodies require staff, systems, and funding to carry out these duties.

Indirectly, the regulation affects every legal practitioner, incorporated legal practice, and multi-disciplinary partnership in the jurisdiction. A lawyer applying for a practising certificate deals with the Law Society, not the Board. A law practice facing an audit or ban on its corporate structure deals with the Board, not the Law Society. Partners in a multi-disciplinary partnership must understand that the Board has power under s 158 to prohibit partnerships with non-lawyers. The regulation does not create these obligations on lawyers; the Act does. But it determines which body enforces them.

Clients and third parties are also affected. A client who has a complaint about a lawyer’s conduct will see the Law Society involved in the disciplinary process (e.g. ss 432, 447, 454). A client who suspects a trust account irregularity must report it to the Law Society (s 254). A client who is a victim of mismanagement may rely on the Law Society to appoint a trust money supervisor (s 525). The regulation’s allocation of these functions to the Law Society, rather than the Board, affects who a client contacts and the procedural path that follows.

Other regulators are affected. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) receives information from the Law Society under ss 134-135 regarding external administration of incorporated legal practices. The regulation thus shapes inter-agency information flows. Similarly, interstate legal practitioners (ss 80, 81, 85) must deal with the Law Society when they wish to practise in the jurisdiction. Foreign regulators and foreign regulatory action triggers the Board’s role under s 106. The regulation’s assignment therefore has cross-border implications.

Compliance professionals and external examiners are affected. The Law Society designates external examiners (s 265), and law practices must engage them. The Society also sets the fees (s 92) and determines the protocols for trust money (s 235). The Board’s audit function (s 130) means that incorporated legal practices may be subject to audit by the Board or its appointees. Understanding which body is responsible for each compliance requirement reduces confusion and the risk of non-compliance.

The regulation itself imposes no duties or rights on anyone beyond the designation of the prescribed authorities. However, by identifying which body exercises each statutory function, the regulation shapes the duties and rights that exist under the Act. For each section listed in Schedules 1 and 2, the relevant prescribed authority has specific duties and rights.

Duties of the Law Society. Under Schedule 1, the Society must maintain the register of approvals and prohibition orders (s 21), the roll of local lawyers (s 35), the register of local practising certificates (s 88), and the register of disciplinary action (s 497). It must process applications for grant or renewal of practising certificates (s 53), impose and vary conditions (ss 55, 56, 57), and amend, suspend, or cancel certificates (ss 65, 68). It must receive and investigate show cause events (ss 72-74), advise the Board of certain decisions (ss 54, 66, 69), and hear appeals against its own decisions (ss 84, 85). The Society must also exercise powers regarding trust accounts: deposit money (s 352), authorise withdrawals (s 353), manage interest (s 355), investigate irregularities (s 254, 260), appoint external examiners (s 265), approve ADIs (s 273), and receive reports (s 275). It has duties to notify other jurisdictions of certain matters (s 99) and to report suspected offences (s 649). It must also protect confidentiality (ss 602, 614, 655) and has a right to immunity from liability for acts done in good faith (s 656).

Rights of the Law Society. The Society has the right to impose conditions on practising certificates (ss 56, 57), to refuse to grant or renew (s 53), to suspend or cancel (ss 65, 68), and to restrict further applications (s 75). It may appoint supervisors of trust money (s 525), require compliance with investigations (s 583), and hold hearings (s 582). It may make legal profession rules (ss 221, 226) and set fees (s 92). It may also recover costs of investigations (s 264) and examinations (s 272).

Duties and rights of the Board. The Board’s functions under Schedule 2 are narrower but powerful. Under s 106, the Board may initiate show cause procedures that could lead to removal of a lawyer’s name from the local roll following foreign regulatory action. Under ss 130 and 132, the Board has the right to audit incorporated legal practices and ban them from providing legal services. Under s 133, it can disqualify a person from managing an incorporated legal practice. Under s 158, it can prohibit partnerships with partners who are not Australian legal practitioners. These are interventionist powers that the Board has the duty to exercise in accordance with the Act’s procedures, including procedural fairness requirements.

Rights of practitioners and practices. They have the right to apply for practising certificates, to be assessed for suitability (s 43), to appeal decisions to the Supreme Court (ss 84, 85), to be given reasons (s 457), and to have determinations recorded (s 459). They must comply with conditions, show cause requirements, and reporting obligations.

The regulation itself does not create penalties. Penalties arise from the substantive provisions of the Act. However, the regulation determines which prescribed authority is responsible for enforcing those provisions. Understanding who enforces what is critical to assessing enforcement risk.

The Law Society has enforcement tools under many of the sections listed in Schedule 1. It can impose conditions, suspend or cancel practising certificates, restrict further applications, and refer matters to the Supreme Court (ss 84, 90). It can appoint supervisors of trust money (s 525), who have powers to take control of trust accounts. The Society can also appoint external interveners under Part 4.7 of the Act (ss 523-532). Failure to comply with an external intervener’s requirements is enforceable. The Society may also report suspected offences to prosecuting authorities (s 649). The register of disciplinary action (s 497) serves as a public record that can damage reputation, which is itself a deterrent.

The Board’s enforcement powers under Schedule 2 are more direct and severe. Under s 130, the Board can audit an incorporated legal practice. Non-compliance or adverse findings could lead to a ban under s 132. The ban prevents the practice from providing legal services in the jurisdiction. Under s 133, the Board can disqualify an individual from managing an incorporated legal practice, similar to a disqualification under corporations law. Under s 158, the Board can prohibit a partnership from having non-lawyer partners, which can force dissolution or restructuring. The Board does not have day-to-day oversight of individual lawyers, but its powers over entity structures are broad and can be used to shut down non-compliant business models.

Enforcement mechanisms under the Act include court orders (s 90), Tribunal orders (ss 480, 481), and compensation orders (s 493). The prescribed authority is often the party that brings the matter or is notified of outcomes. For instance, the Board advises the prescribed authority of complaints (s 432) and outcomes of investigations (s 447). The prescribed authority then may take its own action, such as amending a practising certificate.

The regulation also assigns responsibility for reporting to the Board. Under s 653, the Law Society must report to the Board on certain matters. Under s 655, the Law Society has confidentiality obligations, but enforcement of that provision would fall to the Board or a court.

In terms of enforcement costs, the regulation concentrates most enforcement functions in the Law Society, which is a professional association rather than a government agency. This creates accountability questions: the Society may be lenient towards its own members, or may be concerned about reputational risk to the profession. The Board, being a separate statutory body, may have less conflict of interest but has limited resources dedicated to the few functions it holds. Consequently, enforcement of entity-level provisions (Board’s domain) may be less frequent but more impactful when it occurs.

The regulation itself does not interact with other laws, but the provisions it references do. Several sections in Schedule 1 and 2 explicitly refer to other legislation. For example, s 134 (Law Society) requires disclosure of information to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Section 135 deals with external administration proceedings under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Section 136 deals with external administration under other legislation. Section 138 addresses receivership under the Act and external administration under other legislation. The Law Society, as prescribed authority for these provisions, must coordinate with ASIC and other bodies.

The Act’s provisions on incorporated legal practices (ss 120-138) interact heavily with corporations law. The Board’s powers under ss 130, 132, and 133 mirror certain ASIC powers under the Corporations Act regarding audit and disqualification. The regulation ensures that the Board, not ASIC, handles these specific functions for legal practices. However, ASIC retains its general powers over corporations; the regulation does not oust ASIC’s jurisdiction but creates a parallel regulatory layer.

The trust account provisions interact with banking law. The Law Society approves ADIs (authorised deposit-taking institutions) under s 273, indicating interaction with the Banking Act 1959 (Cth). The requirements for designated trust deposit accounts (s 352) and withdrawals (s 353) must comply with banking rules.

Foreign regulatory action is a key trigger. Sections 101, 102, 105, 106, and 107 deal with foreign regulatory action and interstate orders. The regulation assigns the Board responsibility for show cause procedures under s 106 (removal from roll following foreign action), while the Law Society handles other foreign-related notifications and cancellations (ss 100-105, 107). This bifurcation means that a lawyer facing foreign discipline may have to deal with both authorities, depending on the stage.

The legal profession rules (ss 221-228) made by the Law Society may need to be consistent with other laws, such as competition law, anti-discrimination law, and privacy law. The regulation places the rule-making function with the Law Society, so the professional association shapes the regulatory framework subject to those external legal constraints.

The regulation also interacts with interstate legal practice. Sections 80, 81, 85 deal with interstate legal practitioners practising locally. The Law Society is the prescribed authority. This integration with the national legal profession framework (the mutual recognition scheme) is critical for lawyers moving between jurisdictions.

The Act itself provides for the Board and prescribed authority to share information (ss 432, 435, 447, 452). The regulation clarifies which body is which, enabling those information flows to operate without confusion.

The source does not contain any amendment history. The regulations commenced on 9 July 2018, having been notified in the Gazette on 27 June 2018. There is no indication of any subsequent amendment. However, it is possible that the schedules have been updated over time through amending regulations not provided. The user only supplied the version as at 12 April 2026, which may include amendments up to that date. The text as shown lists only the original provisions. In practice, the list of sections in Schedules 1 and 2 could be amended to reflect changes to the Legal Profession Act 2007, such as new sections being added or renumbered. Additionally, the regulation could be amended to reassign particular sections from one prescribed authority to the other, or to add or remove sections from the schedules.

The regulation-making power likely permits the executive to amend the schedules by regulation without amending the Act itself. This flexibility allows the government to adjust regulatory responsibilities in response to capacity, performance, or jurisdictional changes. For example, if the Board gains expertise in a new area, a section could be moved from the Law Society to the Board.

The short title and commencement provisions are standard. The regulation is a standalone instrument, not part of the Act. It is subject to disallowance by the Parliament under the usual delegated legislation procedures. Practitioners should check the current version when relying on it, as the schedules may have changed.

The source does not mention any litigation concerning this regulation. However, the regulation itself is unlikely to be a direct subject of litigation because it merely designates authorities. Challenges are more likely to arise against decisions made by those authorities under the Act. For instance, a lawyer whose practising certificate is refused or suspended may appeal under s 84 (Law Society as prescribed authority) to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can review the Law Society’s decision on merits or on legal grounds. Similarly, a law practice banned by the Board under s 132 could seek judicial review. Appeals from Board decisions may lie to the Supreme Court under the Act’s general appeal provisions.

The regulation could be challenged on ultra vires grounds if it purported to assign functions that are not properly delegated by the Act. For example, if the Act requires a particular function to be exercised by a specific body, the regulation cannot reassign it. But the source does not indicate any such challenge.

The absence of reported litigation on this specific regulation suggests it is not controversial. The division of responsibilities follows a familiar pattern in Australian legal profession regulation. The more significant litigation history concerns the substantive provisions of the Act, such as disputes over practising certificate conditions, trust account breaches, or disciplinary proceedings.

Overlap between Law Society and Board responsibilities. Although the schedules appear to divide functions cleanly, some provisions interact. For example, the Law Society manages practising certificates and show cause events (ss 72-74). But if the show cause event arises from foreign regulatory action, the Board handles the ultimate removal from the roll under s 106. A lawyer may thus face a dual process: the Law Society may suspend or cancel the practising certificate, and the Board may separately seek removal from the roll. The lawyer must respond to both proceedings.

The Board has very limited functions but significant power. A practitioner or practice could overlook the Board because it appears in only five sections. Yet those sections include the ability to ban an incorporated legal practice and disqualify a manager. The Board’s audit power under s 130 can be triggered at any time, and the Board can decide to act without any complaint from the Law Society. If the Law Society discovers irregularities in an incorporated legal practice, it may be required to inform the Board, which then has independent enforcement power.

Trust account oversight sits entirely with the Law Society, not the Board. This means that law practices report all trust irregularities to the Law Society (s 254). The Society appoints external examiners. The Society can appoint a supervisor of trust money. The Board has no role in trust account regulation. This concentration may be convenient but also creates a risk that the Society may be too close to the profession to identify systemic problems.

Fees are set by the Law Society, not the Board or government. Section 92 gives the prescribed authority (Law Society) the power to determine fees for applications, certificates, and other matters. This means the Law Society effectively controls its own revenue from regulation. There is no independent check on fee levels, other than potential challenge by practitioners or oversight by the Board under other mechanisms. This could lead to fee creep.

Appeals against Law Society decisions go to the Supreme Court (ss 84, 85). That is a high-cost avenue. There is no internal review mechanism within the Law Society. A practitioner must incur substantial legal costs to challenge a refusal or condition. By contrast, Board decisions may be reviewable under administrative law but the source does not specify.

Reporting obligations under ss 649 and 653 are mandatory. The Law Society must report suspected offences to the appropriate authority and must report to the Board. Failure could expose the Society to liability. Practitioners should not assume that confidential information given to the Society will remain confidential; the Society may be compelled to report.

The regulation does not define “Board”. Regulation 3 only defines “Act”. The term “Board” presumably refers to the Legal Practice Board or similar, but it is not defined in this regulation. The meaning must be taken from the Act. This could cause confusion if the Act uses “Board” in multiple contexts.

No provision for delegation. The regulation does not say that the prescribed authority can delegate its functions. However, the Act likely permits delegation (not shown in source). Practitioners should check whether they are dealing with a person with authority.

Compliance with the regulation itself requires no action from lawyers or law practices; it is a machinery instrument. Compliance is with the Act, but understanding which authority is responsible for each provision helps ensure that communications and applications are directed correctly.

For individual lawyers. Apply for grants and renewals of local practising certificates with the Law Society. Ensure that any show cause events are reported to the Law Society as required by ss 72-73. Comply with conditions imposed by the Law Society under ss 55-57. If you have an interstate practising certificate and wish to practise locally, notify the Law Society per ss 80, 81. If you are subject to foreign regulatory action, notify the Law Society per ss 100-102. The Law Society will then decide whether to suspend or cancel your certificate; separate action by the Board under s 106 may follow.

For incorporated legal practices. Engage an external examiner designated by the Law Society (ss 265-269). Ensure trust records are examined annually. Report irregularities to the Law Society (s 254). Appoint a legal practitioner director; if you lose a director, notify the Law Society under s 120. The Board may also audit your practice under s 130. Cooperate with any Board audit. If the Board issues a ban or disqualification, seek legal advice immediately. Understand that the Board has power to prohibit partnerships with non-lawyer partners under s 158; ensure partnership structures comply.

For multi-disciplinary partnerships. Ensure that any partnership with non-lawyer partners is not prohibited by the Board under s 158. Seek guidance from the Board if uncertain.

For trust accounts. All trust money must be deposited into a designated trust deposit account with an ADI approved by the Law Society (ss 273, 352). Withdrawals must follow s 353. Maintain records and allow external examination as directed by the Law Society.

For reporting. If you suspect an irregularity in trust accounts, report it to the Law Society (s 254). If you are an external examiner, submit reports to the Law Society under s 271.

For disciplinary matters. If the Law Society or Board takes action against you, you have rights to appeal. File appeals within the time limits set by the Act and Supreme Court rules.

General. Maintain awareness of which authority handles each aspect of regulation. Keep abreast of any changes to the schedules, as the regulation may be amended. Comply with legal profession rules made by the Law Society under ss 221, 226, which have the force of delegated legislation. Ensure that any changes to your practice structure, such as incorporation or partnership changes, are vetted against the Board’s powers.

Costs and compliance burden. Compliance costs are not self-executing. Obtaining external examinations, paying fees, and responding to audits or investigations all impose time and money costs. The regulation concentrates these costs through the Law Society, which sets the fees. Practitioners should budget for these expenses. The Board’s audit power may be exercised unpredictably, creating uncertainty. Maintaining records and adopting clear internal policies can reduce the risk of triggering enforcement action by either authority.