Notaries Public Act 2016

The Act uses several key concepts that structure the regulation of notaries public in South Australia.

Notary public. The Act does not define “notary public” substantively. Instead, it relies on the common law and customary understanding of the office. Section 6 simply confers on a person admitted under the Act “all the powers and authorities … exercisable by law or custom by notaries public.” That includes powers such as attesting documents, certifying copies, administering oaths (including for use overseas), noting and protesting bills of exchange, and drawing up maritime protests. The Act does not list these functions; a practitioner must look to the general law and international conventions for the scope of the role.

Entitlement to practise the profession of the law. This concept is central. Section 3(2) states that a person is entitled if they are a local legal practitioner or an interstate legal practitioner, but not during any period in which their right to practise is under suspension. This means only individuals who hold a current practising certificate in South Australia (or an interstate practising certificate recognised under the Legal Practitioners Act 1981) are eligible to become or remain a notary public. An interstate legal practitioner can apply, provided they are entitled to practise law in this State. The requirement of at least five years’ admission as a legal practitioner (in any State) ensures a minimum level of professional experience before a person can be entrusted with notarial office.

LPEAC. The Legal Practitioners Education and Admission Council, established under the Legal Practitioners Act 1981, is given rule‑making functions under s 4 of this Act. LPEAC may make rules about qualifications for admission and enrolment as a notary public (s 4(1)(a)(i)), and about post‑admission education, training, or experience (s 4(1)(a)(ii)). The Act requires LPEAC to consult any prescribed representative body for notaries (s 4(3)) before making rules. Rules requiring further education or experience also need the concurrence of the Attorney‑General (s 4(4)). These rules are not contained in the Act itself; they are made separately and impose ongoing compliance obligations on notaries.

Roll of notaries public. The Registrar of the Supreme Court must keep a roll (s 7(1)). A person whose name appears on the roll may obtain a certificate certifying that they are a notary public (s 7(2)). An apparently genuine document purporting to be such a certificate is admissible as evidence of admission (s 7(3)). The roll is not a mere register; it is the official record of who holds the office, and removal from it (automatic or by Court order) ends notarial authority.

Fit and proper person. Section 5(2)(c) requires the Supreme Court to be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to practise as a notary public. This is a familiar standard in legal regulation, importing considerations of honesty, integrity, and reputation. The Court has discretion to assess this in light of all circumstances, and the bar is likely higher than for ordinary legal practice because notaries perform functions of special trust (e.g. authentication for overseas authorities).

Unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct. These terms are defined in ss 68 and 69 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981, and s 8 of this Act deems conduct of a notary public in performing notarial functions to be conduct occurring in connection with the practice of law. This ensures that the existing disciplinary machinery applies without needing separate notary‑specific definitions.

Automatic removal. Section 10 provides that removal from the roll of legal practitioners (or the interstate equivalent) automatically removes the person from the roll of notaries public. Also, for any period during which the person is not entitled to practise law in South Australia, their name is taken to be removed from the notary roll. This is a mechanical consequence; no Court order is needed.

The Act directly affects several groups.

Legal practitioners. The primary class is legal practitioners (solicitors and barristers) who wish to practise as notaries public. Only they may apply: s 5(1) requires the applicant to be entitled to practise the profession of the law in South Australia and to have been admitted as a legal practitioner for at least five years. That excludes any non‑lawyer profession from holding notarial office in South Australia, unlike some other jurisdictions where accountants or specialist conveyancers can become notaries. It also excludes lawyers who have been admitted for fewer than five years, regardless of expertise. The Act therefore restricts the supply of notarial services by design. For legal practitioners already on the roll when the Act commenced, the transitional provision (Schedule 1 cl 6) deemed them to be admitted; they are not required to re‑apply.

Interstate legal practitioners. Section 3(2) includes interstate legal practitioners within the definition of persons entitled to practise the profession of the law, provided their right is not under suspension. An interstate lawyer can apply to the Supreme Court for admission as a notary public, even if not locally practising. However, s 5(2)(a) requires the Court to be satisfied that the person’s entitlement to practise is not, in any State, subject to any limitation, restriction, or condition inconsistent with notarial functions. That means an interstate lawyer with a restricted practising certificate (for example, one that excludes litigation) may be ineligible if the restriction is inconsistent with notarial work.

Users of notarial services. Anyone who needs documents notarised for domestic or international purposes - such as businesses involved in cross‑border transactions, individuals needing authentication for overseas visas or property dealings, and shipping companies needing protests - is affected. The Act does not prescribe fees or tariff of services; those are matters for the market. However, the barrier to entry (only lawyers of five years’ standing) may reduce the number of notaries and affect availability and pricing. Users cannot rely on a non‑lawyer notary; the only legal notaries in South Australia are legal practitioners who have gone through the Act’s admission process. The transitional provision ensures existing notaries continue, so there is no disruption at commencement.

Regulatory bodies. The Legal Practitioners Education and Admission Council (LPEAC) must develop and monitor compliance with rules relating to notarial qualifications and ongoing education. The Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner and the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal have expanded jurisdiction to cover notarial conduct. The Supreme Court is the admitting body and may also suspend or remove notaries from the roll on its own motion. The Registrar of the Supreme Court maintains the roll and issues certificates. The Attorney‑General has a gatekeeping role: concurrence is required before LPEAC can make rules requiring further education or experience (s 4(4)). The Law Society of South Australia may apply to the Court for suspension or removal (s 9(1)).

Persons acting without authorisation. Section 11 makes it an offence, punishable by a fine of up to $50,000, to act as a notary public without being admitted and enrolled. That affects anyone who might purport to provide notarial services without the requisite admission - including former notaries who have been removed or suspended, legal practitioners whose names have been automatically removed, and non‑lawyers.

Rights of applicants and admitted notaries. A person who meets the eligibility criteria in s 5(1) and satisfies the Supreme Court of the matters in s 5(2) is entitled to be admitted and enrolled as a notary public. That is a statutory entitlement, not a mere discretion: the Court “is entitled” to grant admission (s 5(2)). Once admitted, the notary has the right to exercise all powers and authorities that by law or custom belong to notaries public (s 6). The notary may apply for a certificate from the Registrar certifying their status (s 7(2)), and that certificate is prima facie evidence of admission in legal proceedings (s 7(3)). A notary also has the right to make written representations to the Supreme Court if the Court proposes to suspend or remove their name from the roll (s 9(2)(b)(iii) - the Court must invite representations within a period of 7 to 28 days).

Duties before admission. An applicant must have been admitted as a legal practitioner for at least five years (s 5(1)(b)). The applicant must comply with any rules made by LPEAC prescribing qualifications for admission (s 4(1)(a)(i)) or seek an exemption under s 5(2)(b)(ii). The Supreme Court must be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person. After the Court grants admission, the person must make an oath in the prescribed form before the Registrar or a Commissioner for affidavits (s 5(3)). That oath is a condition of being enrolled; it is not optional.

Duties after admission. The Act imposes few express duties, but many are implied. The notary must remain entitled to practise law in South Australia. If that entitlement lapses or is suspended, the name is automatically removed from the roll (s 10). The notary must comply with any rules made by LPEAC under s 4(1)(a)(ii) regarding post‑admission education, training, or experience. Those rules may be linked to the issue or renewal of practising certificates (s 4(5)), so non‑compliance can indirectly affect the ability to practise law, not just notarial functions. Notarial conduct is subject to the legal practitioner disciplinary regime; the notary must avoid unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct in the performance of notarial functions (s 8). The notary must also respond to any application for suspension or removal and may be required to show cause why the name should remain on the roll.

Duty to maintain the roll. The Registrar must cause a roll to be kept (s 7(1)) and must grant a certificate upon application (s 7(2)). This is a duty of the office, not of the notary.

No duty to provide services. The Act does not impose any obligation on a notary to accept instructions; that is left to professional standards and contractual arrangements.

Rights of the public and applicants. There is no private right of action under the Act. A person aggrieved by a notary’s conduct may complain to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner, whose powers flow from the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 as applied by s 8.

Criminal offence. Section 11 creates an offence: a person who acts as a notary public without being admitted and enrolled under the Act is guilty of an offence. The maximum penalty is $50,000. This is a monetary fine; there is no imprisonment. The offence is one of strict liability or requires proof of acting as a notary; the Act does not specify a mens rea element. A person whose name has been automatically removed (because they lost their legal practising right) commits the offence if they continue to act as a notary. Similarly, a person whose name has been suspended or removed by Court order is caught. “Acting as a notary public” is not defined; it would likely include attesting documents in a notarial capacity, using the title “notary public”, or holding oneself out as such. The penalty of $50,000 is substantial and indicates the legislature’s view that unauthorised notarial practice is serious, possibly because of the risk of fraud or unreliable documents.

Disciplinary consequences. Conduct by a notary in performing notarial functions is treated as conduct in connection with the practice of law. That means the Legal Practitioners Act 1981’s disciplinary provisions apply. Under that Act, unsatisfactory professional conduct can result in a range of orders, from a caution to conditions on a practising certificate or a fine. Professional misconduct can lead to suspension or cancellation of the legal practising certificate. Additionally, the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner may, under s 77J of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981, impose conditions on a practitioner’s practising certificate (s 8(3) of this Act). The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal may also impose conditions relating to the notarial practice (s 8(4)). Those conditions may limit the type of notarial work the person can do or require supervision. While the Act does not explicitly empower the Commissioner or Tribunal to remove the notary from the roll, the Supreme Court can do so on application (s 9(1)).

Court‑ordered suspension or removal. The Supreme Court has a broad power under s 9 to suspend or remove a notary’s name from the roll, on its own initiative or on application by the Attorney‑General, the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner, or the Law Society. The Court must first serve the notary with notice specifying the order sought and the ground, and invite written representations within a period of 7 to 28 days (s 9(2)). This is a summary procedure; there is no requirement for a formal hearing unless the Court directs. If the Court makes an order, it must give written notice of the terms and reasons (s 9(3)). The Act does not specify grounds for suspension or removal; the Court retains a discretion to act if it “considers that a ground exists”. This could include any conduct that makes a person unfit to be a notary, including but not limited to disciplinary findings, criminal convictions, loss of honesty, or breach of LPEAC rules.

Automatic removal. Section 10 provides for removal without Court order: if the person is removed from the legal practitioners’ roll (or interstate equivalent), or is not entitled to practise law in South Australia (e.g. because their practising certificate is suspended or cancelled), the name is taken to be removed from the notary roll automatically. This ensures that no one can hold notarial office while not allowed to practise law. There is no hearing or notice required; the removal flows mechanically from the underlying loss of entitlement. The person may not know immediately, but the Registrar would presumably note the change. The person commits an offence if they then act as a notary.

Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA). This is the principal interaction. The Notaries Public Act 2016 amends the Legal Practitioners Act by repealing former Part 7 (which had dealt with notaries public) and making consequential changes to ss 14C, 17A, and 21 (Schedule 1 Part 2). Section 14C(1)(d) is amended to include functions assigned to LPEAC by “any other Act,” which captures the rule‑making role under s 4 of this Act. Section 17A is amended to clarify that references to rules made by LPEAC include rules made under this Act, insofar as they relate to a legal practitioner who is also a notary public. Section 21(3)(r) is amended to replace “public notary” with “notary public admitted and enrolled under the Notaries Public Act 2016”. The disciplinary integration through s 8 means that the Legal Practitioners Act’s investigation, inquiry, and disciplinary mechanisms apply directly. Conditions imposed on a practising certificate by the Commissioner or Tribunal relating to notarial practice are enforceable under the Legal Practitioners Act. Because the notary must be a legal practitioner, any suspension or cancellation of the practising certificate triggers automatic removal under s 10 of this Act.

Common law and customary international law of notaries. Section 6 confers powers exercisable “by law or custom by notaries public.” This imports the general body of notarial law, which in Australia derives from English common law and the law merchant. Important sources include the law of evidence concerning notarial acts (e.g. the Hague Apostille Convention, to which Australia is a party, and the Authentication of Documents Act 1967 (Cth)). The Act does not codify those powers; a notary must be familiar with the common law functions: taking affidavits, attesting signatures, certifying copies, noting bills of exchange, making maritime protests, and authenticating documents for foreign jurisdictions. The Act also does not address conflicts of interest, confidentiality, or fees; those are governed by general law and professional obligations of legal practitioners.

Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner and Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. Those bodies derive their powers from the Legal Practitioners Act 1981. Section 8 of this Act extends their jurisdiction to cover notarial conduct. A complaint against a notary about notarial work is handled under the same procedures as a complaint about legal practice. This avoids the need for a separate complaints body for notaries.

Interstate legal practitioners and mutual recognition. The Act does not contain a mutual recognition scheme for notaries from other States. Instead, an interstate legal practitioner may apply for admission under s 5, but must satisfy the criteria, including compliance with LPEAC rules and the fit and proper test. There is no automatic recognition of an interstate notarial appointment. However, the transitional provision (Schedule 1 cl 6) maintains continuity within South Australia only. The definition of “interstate legal practitioner” is drawn from the Legal Practitioners Act 1981, so any interstate lawyer entitled to practise in SA (e.g. under the Legal Profession Uniform Law if applicable or the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) for practising certificates) can apply as a local legal practitioner for this purpose.

Regulations. Section 12 allows the Governor to make regulations contemplated by the Act. As of the text, no regulations are specified, but they could prescribe classes of persons (s 4(3)), forms (ss 5(3), 7(2)), and other matters. Regulations may impose additional compliance requirements or fee structures.

Other Commonwealth legislation. Notaries public often certify documents for use overseas, which implicates the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (Apostille Convention). The Act does not directly reference that convention; the ability to issue apostilles is handled under Commonwealth legislation (the Authentication of Documents Act 1967 (Cth) and the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth)), but a notary’s underlying authority derives from this Act.

The Notaries Public Act 2016 (No 42 of 2016) was assented to on 29 September 2016 and commenced on 1 February 2018 (Gazette 28 November 2017 p4752). It was a new stand‑alone Act, replacing the former notarial provisions in Part 7 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981. The Act has been amended once since enactment.

Amendment by the Legal Practitioners (Disciplinary Matters and Fidelity Fund) Amendment Act 2025 (No 51 of 2025). This amendment received assent on 20 November 2025 and is scheduled to commence on 1 September 2026 (Gazette 5 February 2026 p196). The text of the amendment is not included in the version of the Act provided; the legislative history notes only that new entries appear in bold. The title suggests it relates to disciplinary matters and the fidelity fund, and likely makes further adjustments to the disciplinary framework affecting notaries public. The amendment is not yet in force at the time of writing, and its precise changes are not available from the source text. However, it demonstrates that the legislature continues to regard notarial discipline as part of broader legal practitioner reform.

No other amendments have been made to the Notaries Public Act 2016 since commencement. The Act as originally enacted has been in operation for several years with minimal legislative intervention. The transitional provision (Schedule 1 cl 6) ensured that the existing roll and practitioners were carried over without disruption. The legislative history itself is sparse; there are no notes about multiple versions or earlier bills.

The Act’s relatively short and stable amendment history may reflect that it was, when enacted, a consolidation and modernisation of existing provisions, rather than a novel regulatory framework. The former Part 7 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 had been in place for many years, and the 2016 Act largely re‑enacted similar requirements (admission by Supreme Court, roll, automatic removal) but with updated terminology and clearer integration with the legal practitioner disciplinary regime. The amendment in 2025 appears to be part of a broader reform of legal profession regulation rather than a targeted change to notary law.

From a compliance perspective, practitioners should monitor the commencement of the 2025 amendment and any related rules made by LPEAC. The Act itself gives LPEAC power to make rules, and those rules may be amended from time to time without requiring legislative amendment. Thus, the amendment history of the Act is only one part of the evolving regulatory landscape; the LPEAC rules are the more dynamic component.

The source text of the Notaries Public Act 2016 contains no references to litigation, court decisions, or judicial interpretation of its provisions. The Act is not accompanied by notes or annotations that record any cases that have considered it. The legislative history table does not include any mention of legal challenges or appellate decisions. As a result, there is no litigation history that can be grounded in the provided source. This may indicate that the Act has operated without significant judicial controversy since its commencement in February 2018. The Act is relatively narrow in scope; it sets eligibility rules, establishes a disciplinary interface with the existing legal practitioner regime, and creates an offence. Disputes about admission or removal are likely to be handled by the Supreme Court under s 9 or through the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, but those decisions may not be readily incorporated into the Act’s text. It is possible that unreported decisions exist, but they are not part of the Act itself.

The absence of cited litigation also suggests that the transitional arrangements were smooth; no one appears to have challenged the continuation of the roll under Schedule 1 cl 6. The requirement to have been a legal practitioner for at least five years (s 5(1)(b)) may have been the subject of interpretation (e.g. what counts as “admitted as a legal practitioner”), but no case is identified. The meaning of “fit and proper person” (s 5(2)(c)) is a well‑known standard in legal regulation, and while case law from other contexts is likely referenced in submissions, the Act itself does not cite any.

For the purposes of this deep dive, the litigation history is a blank page. Practitioners should be aware that the Act may be judicially considered in future - particularly the interaction between s 8 and the Legal Practitioners Act’s disciplinary provisions, or the extent of the Supreme Court’s power under s 9 to act on its own initiative. Without precedent from this legislation, the courts will rely on general principles of notarial law and the analogous case law concerning removal of legal practitioners from the roll. The offence under s 11 has not been tested in the provided materials.

It is possible that prosecutions for acting as a notary public without admission have occurred under s 11, but those would be criminal matters heard in magistrates’ courts and not necessarily recorded in the Act’s legislative history. The penalty of $50,000 is high, suggesting the legislature expected enforcement. Still, without a specific case reference, we cannot confirm any litigation history.

No stand‑alone notary profession. Admission as a notary public is parasitic on being a legal practitioner. A person cannot be admitted as a notary public only; they must maintain their legal practising certificate (or interstate equivalent) and entitlement to practise law. Loss of that entitlement automatically removes them from the notary roll under s 10. This means the notary cannot continue notarial work while suspended from legal practice, even if the suspension relates only to legal work not notarial work. Similarly, a notary who is removed from the legal practitioners’ roll for unrelated misconduct loses the notarial office automatically, without a separate hearing on the notarial conduct. That may be a harsh consequence for a practitioner whose only infraction was unrelated to notarial functions.

Five‑year admission requirement is a minimum. The Act requires at least five years as a legal practitioner. That is a gateway, not a guarantee. The Supreme Court must also be satisfied that the person has complied with LPEAC rules (s 5(2)(b)(i)) or is exempt, and that they are fit and proper (s 5(2)(c)). The Court may refuse admission even to a practitioner with decades of experience if, for example, they have a disciplinary history or are not considered fit and proper for notarial practice. The Act gives the Court discretion to exempt from LPEAC rules (s 5(2)(b)(ii)), but that is an exception, not a right. The LPEAC rules themselves are not in the Act; they could impose additional hurdles such as completion of a notarial practice course or examination.

Court can act on its own initiative. Under s 9(1), the Supreme Court may suspend or remove a notary from the roll on its own initiative, without any application from a regulator or anyone else. That means a judge who becomes aware of a notary’s misconduct (perhaps in the course of unrelated proceedings) could commence the process. The notary must be served with notice and given at least 7 days to make representations (s 9(2)), but that is a short window, particularly if the notary needs to consult a lawyer or gather evidence. The notary does not have a right to an oral hearing; the Court may decide on written representations alone.

No defined grounds for suspension or removal. The Act does not list the grounds on which the Supreme Court may act under s 9. It says only “if the Court considers that a ground exists for so doing.” This gives the Court an extremely broad discretion. It could suspend or remove for reasons that go beyond strict legal misconduct - for example, mental incapacity, conflicts of interest, or even a perceived lack of competence in performing notarial acts. The lack of defined grounds creates uncertainty and increases the risk of inconsistent outcomes. A notary subject to such proceedings has little guidance on what they need to rebut.

Disciplinary powers extend to interstate practising certificates. Under s 8(3) and (4), the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner and the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal may impose conditions on a notary’s practising certificate, defined to include an “interstate practising certificate”. That means an interstate legal practitioner who is a notary in South Australia could face conditions on their home State practising certificate as a result of notarial conduct in SA. This may create cross‑border enforcement complications and affect the practitioner’s ability to practise law in their home jurisdiction.

Post‑admission education rules require A‑G concurrence but are not subject to public consultation. Rules under s 4(1)(a)(ii) (requiring further education or experience) need the concurrence of the Attorney‑General, but the Act does not require those rules to be published or laid before Parliament. Notaries may face unexpected mandatory training or experience requirements that could affect renewal of their practising certificates (s 4(5)). The Act does not give notaries a right to be heard before such rules are made.

No limitation on fees. The Act does not regulate the fees a notary may charge. Notaries are free to set their own fees, but because only legal practitioners can become notaries, and the number may be limited by the eligibility criteria, there is potential for higher costs for consumers. The Act provides no mechanism for price oversight or complaints about excessive charging (unless it amounts to misconduct).

Oath requirement is mandatory but form is not prescribed in the Act. Section 5(3) requires an oath “in the prescribed form.” The form is not set out in the Act; it will be prescribed by rules or regulations. An applicant who takes an oath in the wrong form may not be validly admitted. Practitioners must ensure they obtain the correct form from the Registrar or LPEAC.

Step 1: Eligibility check. A legal practitioner seeking to become a notary public must first confirm they satisfy s 5(1): they must be entitled to practise the profession of the law in South Australia (meaning they hold a current practising certificate as a local or interstate legal practitioner and are not under suspension), and they must have been admitted as a legal practitioner (in SA or another State) for at least five years. That five‑year period runs from the date of admission to the roll of legal practitioners, not from the date of first receipt of a practising certificate. Periods of suspension or non‑practice while still admitted likely count as “admitted” time, but the risk is that the Court may consider the period of admission rather than active practice. It is prudent to check the admission date.

Step 2: Check LPEAC rules. LPEAC may have made rules under s 4(1)(a)(i) prescribing qualifications for admission. Applicants must either have complied with those rules or seek an exemption from the Supreme Court under s 5(2)(b)(ii). Those rules may require completion of a notarial practice course, passing an examination, or demonstrating knowledge of notarial law and practice. The applicant should contact LPEAC or the Law Society to obtain the current rules. Because the Act requires consultation with any prescribed body representing notaries (s 4(3)), the rules may be developed with input from notarial associations.

Step 3: Apply to the Supreme Court. The application is made under s 5(1). The applicant must satisfy the Supreme Court of the matters in s 5(2): (a) no limitations inconsistent with notarial functions; (b) compliance with LPEAC rules or exemption; and (c) fit and proper person. The Court will likely require supporting documents: certified copies of practising certificates, evidence of admission as a legal practitioner for five years, evidence of compliance with LPEAC rules, and character references or affidavits as to fitness and propriety. The Court may also require a police clearance or disclosure of any disciplinary history. The application must be served and will be listed for hearing. The Act does not prescribe a form of application; the Supreme Court Rules will govern the procedure.

Step 4: Take the oath. After the Court orders admission, the person must make an oath in the prescribed form before the Registrar of the Supreme Court or a Commissioner authorised to take affidavits (s 5(3)). The form of oath is not in the Act; the applicant must obtain the prescribed form from the Registrar. The oath must be taken before the person is enrolled; until the oath is taken, the person is not yet a notary public.

Step 5: Maintain entitlement to practise. Once admitted, the notary must continue to hold a current practising certificate and remain entitled to practise law. Any lapse in the practising certificate, suspension, or removal from the legal practitioners’ roll automatically removes the name from the notary roll (s 10). To avoid this, the notary must comply with all Legal Practitioners Act 1981 requirements: pay practising certificate fees, undertake continuing professional development, maintain compulsory insurance, and avoid conduct leading to suspension or cancellation. If the notary is an interstate legal practitioner, they must maintain the interstate practising certificate and also ensure they remain entitled to practise in SA (which may require registration under the Legal Practitioners Act or mutual recognition).

Step 6: Comply with ongoing LPEAC rules. LPEAC may make rules under s 4(1)(a)(ii) requiring post‑admission education, training, or experience. Those rules may be conditions on practising certificates (s 4(5)). Notaries must keep up to date with any such rules and complete requirements as they are introduced. Failure to do so could result in conditions being placed on the practising certificate or even refusal of renewal.

Step 7: Avoid disciplinary risk. Notarial conduct is subject to the legal practitioner disciplinary regime. Notaries must act with care and competence, avoid conflicts of interest, and maintain independence. They should be aware of the common law and customary rules of notarial practice, including document authentication requirements (e.g. for apostilles). They should keep appropriate records and, if in doubt, seek advice from the Law Society or their professional indemnity insurer. If a complaint is made, the notary must cooperate with the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner.

Step 8: Obtain a certificate. Once admitted, the notary may apply to the Registrar for a certificate under s 7(2). This certificate is useful evidence of authority, especially for overseas clients. The application form should be available from the Supreme Court.

Step 9: Do not act as a notary if removed. If the notary’s name is automatically removed (e.g. because of a suspended practising certificate), they must cease all notarial work immediately. Continuing to act is an offence under s 11 with a $50,000 penalty. The notary should inform clients and arrange for another notary to handle pending matters. Re‑admission after automatic removal would require a fresh application under s 5, even if the legal practising certificate is reinstated.