Australia: Climb on board
Incorporation ushers in a new era for law firms: shares; options; even trading on the Stock Exchange, writes Chris Merritt
August 30, 2000 at 08:03 PM
5 minute read
It now seems certain that law firms in at least two Australian states will soon be free to incorporate under normal company law, offer equity to investors, share profits with anyone and even trade their shares on the Australian Stock Exchange.
Legislation allowing incorporation in New South Wales (NSW) is currently before the State Parliament and is expected to come into force by early next year. It has been endorsed by both sides of the political spectrum. On the other side of the country, a similar scheme, in draft form, enjoys bipartisan support in Western Australia.
When incorporation becomes available in Sydney, which dominates the Australian market for legal services, it is expected to lead to one of the greatest upheavals in the structure of the Australian legal profession.
The big firms that operate in all Australian jurisdictions generally support the scheme, but have indicated they are unlikely to incorporate in NSW until similar legislation is in place in all six states. But those firms that operate entirely within NSW would not be affected by inconsistent regulations in other states.
As a result, small- to medium-sized firms are expected to be the first to incorporate. There is also speculation that big international firms could see advantages in establishing an incorporated entity in NSW in order to raise capital for a tilt at the Asian market.
One of the reasons behind the scheme's bipartisan support is the belief that it would reinforce Sydney's position as a regional centre for legal services and meet the challenge from Singapore, which permits a restricted form of incorporation.
The NSW Attorney-General, Bob Debus, says the scheme would make Australian legal practices more attractive to international firms and give local firms the ability to take advantage of the increasing globalisation of the market for legal services "rather than being somewhat helpless victims of that change".
He believes there is "a tremendously strong impetus" for Sydney to become a regional gateway for legal services for the South Pacific, just as it is regionally dominant in financial services, telecommunications, information technology, advertising and electronics.
Law firms in NSW are already free to form multi-disciplinary partnerships without restrictions on the amount of equity that must be held by solicitors. But incorporation offers greater choice of company structure.
Firms will still be able to practice in traditional solicitor-only partnerships, but if they incorporate they will be able to swap the unlimited personal liability associated with principals in partnerships, for the corporate veil enjoyed by shareholders.
There will be significant differences between incorporated legal practices and other companies. The corporate structure will be regulated by the companies watchdog – the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which applies the normal company law.
But the practice of law within these entities will continue to be governed by the same regulators that police legal partnerships: the Law Society of NSW and the State Government's Office of the Legal Services Commissioner.
In order to be able to provide legal services to the public, incorporated practices will need to have a solicitor-director on their board who will be liable for the conduct of the company's lawyers. Consumers will be able to sue individual lawyers and their incorporated practices, but the shareholders – or former partners – will not be exposed to joint and several liability.
Incorporated practices will be required to make compulsory contributions to the Solicitors' Mutual Indemnity Fund and the Solicitors' Fidelity Fund. Both funds are run by the Law Society and will be authorised to make payments for losses caused by professional negligence or dishonesty.
An early version of the scheme had floated the idea of giving the society a statutory veto on every board member of incorporated legal practices – including those directors who were non-lawyers.
But this has been replaced with a technique that will require the Law Society to first seek rulings from the Legal Services Division of the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal or the normal courts.
Armed with such a ruling, the Law Society will have the power to discipline a solicitor-director who sits on a board with an 'unsuitable' director. It will also be able to seek court orders preventing individuals from managing a legal practice.
In May, the NSW Legal Services Commissioner, Steve Mark – a government official – said incorporation amounted to an ethical minefield for lawyers and a potential hazard for consumers.
But the bipartisan endorsement of the scheme is a major victory for the Law Society, which has been the scheme's main backer. It is also a clear win for the big national law firms which stepped up their support for incorporation after the scheme appeared to be in trouble.
The NSW legislation is called the Legal Profession Amendment (Incorporated Legal Practices) Bill 2000 and is available on the NSW parliamentary web site at: www.nsw.gov.au.
Chris Merritt is legal affairs editor for The Australian Financial Review.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 4Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Burr & Forman partner Garry K. Grooms has entered an appearance for 4M Acquisitions and Wallace D. Tweden in a pending environmental lawsuit. The action, filed July 22 in Tennessee Middle District Court by the McKellar Law Group and Mark E. Martin LLC on behalf of Tennessee Riverkeeper, contends that the defendant's violated the Clean Water Act and Tennessee Water Quality Control Act by allowing for the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. without obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge permit. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger, is 3:24-cv-00886, Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Tweden et al.
Who Got The Work
Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Gene W. Lee and Stevan R. Stark of Perkins Coie have entered appearances for R-Pac International in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 12 in New York Southern District Court by PinilisHalpern LLP and Friedman Suder & Cooke on behalf of Adasa Inc, asserts a single patent related to wireless sensors used for tagging products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, is 1:24-cv-06102, Adasa Inc. v. R-Pac International LLC.
Who Got The Work
Walmart has tapped lawyer Nicole M. Wright of Zausmer PC to defend a pending product liability lawsuit. The action was filed Aug. 12 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Wolfe Trial Lawyers on behalf of a plaintiff claiming burns from a defective propane tank. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman, is 2:24-cv-12100, Hill v. Ferrellgas, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Kevin Simpson and James Randall of Winston & Strawn have stepped in to represent Comcast in a pending consumer class action. The case, filed Aug. 11 in Georgia Northern District Court by Kaufman PA, contends that the defendant placed pre-recorded debt collection phone calls to the plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee, is 1:24-cv-03553, Pond v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC.
Who Got The Work
Potter Anderson & Corroon partners Christopher N. Kelly and Kevin R. Shannon have stepped in to represent cloud computing company Fastly and its top executives in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 23 in Delaware District Court by deLeeuw Law and Bragar Eagel & Squire on behalf of Mark Sweitzer, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that revenue growth in 2023 was primarily driven by a 'consolidation trend' in which companies simplified operations by reducing the number of content delivery network vendors under management, thereby reducing competition and increasing the defendant's market share. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gregory B. Williams, is 1:24-cv-00969, Sweitzer v. Nightingale et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250