Legal Profession Uniform Law and Informed Instructions

The Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (LPUL), among other matters, sets out the parameters for the standard of engagement expected of law practices and in turn, solicitors.

Unless these standards are carefully considered and measures are adequately in place within a law practice, there is a real risk that law practices will fall foul of the LPUL whether by inadvertent non-compliance or administrative oversights.

One such ‘risk category’ for non-compliance includes the disclosures required of law practices by section 174 of the LPUL. Among other matters, under this section, a law practice is required to:

  1. inform a client of any significant increases in fee estimates previously provided as soon as practicable.
  2. obtain informed consent from a client for the proposed course of action regarding the conduct of the matter.

In cases of non-compliance under section 174, section 178(1) of the LPUL operates to:

  1. treat the costs agreement between the law practice and the client as void;
  2. not require the client to pay the legal costs until the law practice’s costs have been assessed; and
  3. dictate that a law practice must not commence or maintain proceedings for the recovery of legal costs until the completion of the costs assessment.

In addition, such non-compliance is capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct against the principal or legal practitioner associated with the contravention.

Such provisions of the LPUL ought to be given the seriousness that they seek to inspire for compliance for every-day engagement between law practices and their clients. The consequences prescribed by the LPUL give an added incentive to solicitors to familiarise themselves (and the solicitors supervised by them) with the obligations prescribed by the LPUL and adopt a method of undertaking their legal practice that ensures strict compliance with the LPUL.

Related News

What happens if you, as an insurer, have not yet concluded whether or not to indemnify an insured, and a third party commences Court proceedings against your insured (with the indemnity decision still pending)?

When these types of claims arise, an insurer (and its panel firm) can continue to act for an insured on a “reservation of rights” basis.

Read More

Can you sue if a “registered” company is “in liquidation”, “under administration” or has become “deregistered”? 

It is common to see Court proceedings commenced in the name of an individual or against an individual.   But sometimes, Court proceedings are commenced by

Read More

The Briginshaw-test

Did you know that the Briginshaw-test requires a higher standard of evidence in civil matters where serious allegations are made, such as fraud. This principle

Read More

Get in touch

Contact our team today

Stay informed

Keep up-to-date with our regular news and insights

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
William Roberts Lawyers


Level 22
66 Goulburn Street


Level 21
535 Bourke Street


Level 8
300 Ann Street


Level 19
Singapore Land Tower
50 Raffles Place