Unqualified persons and the practice of law

Legal practitioners are integrally involved in the administration of justice and have various duties to discharge in upholding the law and meeting their duties to the court and to their clients. The entitlement to practise as a lawyer, which is conferred exclusively by legislation, is jealously guarded. Only those people who have complied with the provisions of the particular regulatory statute in their State or Territory may be admitted to practise the profession of the law. Those same statutes prohibit unqualified persons from practising law. This prohibition is bolstered by the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to strike lawyers off the roll of legal practitioners for misfeasance. However, the lack of uniformity in the definition of 'practice of law' creates an interesting anomaly. This article considers the Queensland case of 'Legal Services Commissioner v Walter' and how its outcome might have differed if it had occurred in South Australia. The article examines the statutory provisions prohibiting non-qualified persons from practising as lawyers with a particular focus on the concept of 'fee or reward' as an integral part of legal practice in South Australia. It also questions the continued relevance of the rationale for the prohibition in view of the changing nature of the legal profession, the exponential rise in the costs of legal services and the ever-reducing access of the general public to legal aid.