Evers, Maxine --- "Sole General Practitioners in Australia: Towards Definition, Knowledge and Service" [2024] JCULawRw 7; (2024) 30 James Cook University Law Review 103

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback James Cook University Law Review

Sole General Practitioners in Australia: Towards Definition, Knowledge and Service

Sole legal practitioners in Australia are a significant, but poorly understood, cohort within the legal profession. Even less is known of the sole general practitioner. In Australia, these solicitors appear as abandoned and devoid of definition and understanding. Notwithstanding their invisibility, given their broad practice areas, they offer a significant contribution to the legal needs of their communities.

This article argues that sole general practitioners are a discrete and critical cohort within the broader membership of solicitors, yet their contributions are lost in the confusing definitions of sole and small firm practitioners. In response to this void, this article offers a definition of sole general practice in acknowledgement of its unique place in the profession. The examples of three sole general practitioners, discussed later in this article, support this definition and claim that these lawyers serve a vital role in their communities.

This article also seeks to highlight the important contribution sole general practitioners make to their communities, providing access to the law. Their contributions are, however, not defined as pro bono work. Insights into their experiences, individually and collectively, are essential to the ongoing assessment of legal needs in the community and the role of the profession in meeting these needs. A call to redefine the pro bono framework in Australia concludes this article.

I Introduction

In their significant global study of twenty-first century lawyers, Sommerlad and Hammerslev observe that ‘virtually everywhere the norm remains solo or small firm practice’.^[1] This is the case in Queensland^[2], as in all states and territories in Australia.^[3] Despite the perseverance of the sole and small firm, general practice, as a form of legal practice undertaken by these lawyers, remains a mystery.

Sole general practitioners hold a curious position. In the Australian legal profession they are subsumed within the significant population of solicitors in sole practice. Indeed, sole practitioners are the largest cohort of solicitors in Queensland^[4] and in Australia^[5] more broadly. In contrast, the number of sole practitioners in general practice is unknown. Despite this gap in knowledge about sole general practitioners, they are active contributors to their communities through the provision of access to legal services.

In response to this gap, this article examines the place of sole general practitioners within the solicitor population. These practitioners are in private practice, managing their own businesses.^[6] Insights from three sole general practitioners in New South Wales highlight the broad nature of general practice and the dual role of this cohort of solicitors, serving both clients and communities. One practitioner explained the reason why she kept her late husband’s practice open after he died as: ‘I wasn’t prepared to walk out on my staff and walk out on the community’. Another equated the role of a sole practitioner to that of a general medical practitioner, with the ability to discuss problems face-to-face and provide that ‘little bit of extra service’. Given their shared experiences, these practitioners’ insights have relevance to the sole general practice cohort, especially in regional areas.

The Australian legal profession is divided into two branches: barristers and solicitors. In some states and territories, the profession is fused, with legal practitioners being able to practise as both a barrister and solicitor.^[7] Whilst it is acknowledged that both solicitors in sole practice and barristers are sole traders, barristers specialise in specific legal areas. The other main difference between barristers and solicitors is that barristers rarely work directly with clients, but rather take instructions from solicitors on behalf of their clients.^[8] Barristers are, therefore, not included in this study.

The 2022 National Profile of Solicitors, published by the Law Society of New South Wales (‘NSW Law Society’), reported that in 2022, 13,871 of 16,514 private practices were managed by sole solicitors.^[9] This equates to 84% of the firm structures within the private profession. The population of sole general practitioners is not recorded nor reported. Sole practitioners are united in their obligation of responsibility for the regulatory and financial requirements of their practice, yet, as a cohort, they are disparate, scattered across communities from regional areas to cities, from commercial premises to home offices. Surprisingly, given the statistical dominance of the sole practitioner, we know comparatively little about them and less about sole general practitioners. Indeed, in contrast to the capacity of corporate and international firms to market their services to commercial clients, high-performing law graduates and pro bono evaluators, we have inadequate information about both sole and sole general practitioners, as well as small practices. A lack of identification of who the sole general practitioner is, provides an example of the fundamental gap in information about these solicitors.

‘Sole practitioner’ is itself an umbrella term. It merges the sole practitioner and the sole general practitioner into one. In addition, the small firm practitioner is often twinned with the sole solicitor, thus creating a cluster of sole and small firm practitioners.^[10] A sample of disciplinary decisions from Queensland and New South Wales contribute to this confusion through an absence of clarity and definition as to the practitioners charged with misconduct.

In this paper, the term ‘legal practitioners’ is used synonymously with ‘lawyers’.

Much of our knowledge about sole general practitioners is built on myth and fictional stereotypes. Sole practitioners are admired as entrepreneurs, astute business owners and brave fugitives from large firms. They are equally slighted as swindlers, ‘failed’ corporate lawyers and misfits. These solitary lawyers also attract corresponding mythical images as heroes or champions, represented vividly in fiction by characters such as Atticus Finch^[13]and Denis Denuto,^[14] or as crooks, such as Tulkinghorne.^[15] Cultural images of lawyers are powerful, yet diverse representations of reality. Contrast the image of a lawyer in an ultra-modern, multi-storey tower with harbour views,^[16] surrounded by expensive artefacts and designer-dressed personnel^[17] to that of a street-front office with a tidy reception area, the latter image often visualised as a lawyer and his assistant.

There is a paucity of literature and data on the role and work of the sole general practitioner, particularly in Australia. These practitioners are sole traders, practising across several areas of the law in tandem, for example, conveyancing, wills and estates, personal injury, debt recovery, criminal, family, civil and small business. We do know that they practise in communities, located in cities, suburbs and rural and remote areas. By way of example, in Queensland, in 2023, almost 40% of solicitors were sole practitioners, an increase of 19.38% from 2022^[18] with almost one-third in practice outside of Brisbane.^[19] Being present in a community and accessible to individual and small business clients enables these solicitors to offer a broad range of legal services. General practitioners have a wide array of clients who seek out their services, some of whom have legal, quasi-legal or non-legal problems. There is a perception that, as general practitioners, they provide assistance in all matters related to ‘the Law’. Additionally, as the local lawyer, they are ‘on hand’ to solve legal problems, to provide the community with a pathway to legal services and to enable access to the law, as depicted in The Castle and Fisk.^[20] This movie and television series, respectively, centre on the comic plight of sole and small firm lawyers who are sought out by individual clients across a range of matters. Yet, as a cohort, these solicitors are largely ignored.

In Part II of this article the invisibility of sole general practitioners in Australia is explored. Our absence of knowledge and information about this cohort is examined in relation to their identification. Despite their abandonment, by professional associations in relation to acknowledgement and reporting and by the scholarship of the profession in relation to a gap in the literature, sole general practitioners are a discrete and critical cohort within the solicitors’ branch of the legal profession.

Part III offers a definition of sole general practitioners that distinguishes them from sole practitioners. The existing invisibility and gap in acknowledgement of this cohort, contrasted with the earlier recognition of general practice in socio-legal studies in Australia, concludes this part.

In Part IV, studies in the United States and the United Kingdom are analysed to highlight the contrast with the Australian literature. For sole general practitioners, recognition of the services they provide acknowledges the diverse and important role they have in the provision of access to the law. In order to recognise the contribution of this cohort, this section offers a definition of general practice evidencing their distinctiveness.

The contribution of sole general practitioners to their clients and communities is analysed in Part V, highlighting the critical role of these solicitors, many in rural and regional areas.^[21] The anomaly of their unexamined work falling outside the pro bono framework in Australia is also considered. Reference to three sole general practitioners practising in regional New South Wales illustrates their role in facilitating access to legal services and in serving their communities more broadly. Regional practitioners were selected as examples of private lawyers’ whose general practice expertise and pro bono work is disregarded by the profession, despite being a ‘face’ of the profession to their clients and communities. Suburban and city-based practitioners also provide free or discounted work; however, they may be less visible in their communities.

This article concludes with a summary of the abandonment of sole general practitioners as a cohort. While they share common features with sole solicitors, the nature of their work offers a broad scope of legal services to clients and communities. Insights into the experiences of these solicitors as a cohort is critical in the assessment of legal needs in the community and the role of the profession in meeting these needs.

A Method

This article draws on data and documentary evidence that informs our knowledge and understanding of the solicitors’ branch of the legal profession in Australia. Data is published by professional organisations and research centres. Documentary evidence consists of socio-legal studies and disciplinary cases against solicitors concerning alleged misconduct. These are analysed for their methods of capturing knowledge about sole general practitioners. In addition, qualitative data is drawn from interviews with three sole general practitioners, based on the writer’s PhD thesis, which centred on interviews with 23 sole general practitioners.^[22]

Data is analysed numerically, primarily due to the lack of consistent data sources to enable further analysis based on descriptions, clusters or statistics. The main source of data is statistics as to the solicitor population in Australia published by the NSW Law Society and discussed in Part 1. This quantitative data relates to the population of solicitors practising in specific structures, for example, sole practice, small and large firms. These statistics are provided by the law societies in the six states and two territories. It should be noted that the researchers engaged in the statistical analysis have disclosed a concern with the absolute reliability of the data due to firstly, different reporting methods used across jurisdictions and secondly, changes to criteria within individual jurisdictions over time.^[23] Despite this, reliance on the data is of value in establishing the size of the cohorts within the solicitors’ population.

Whilst documentary evidence provides insights into the work of sole general practitioners, there are, however, constraints in this method. Socio-legal studies are dated and limited in number, further highlighting the lack of attention given to this cohort. Disciplinary decisions are inadequate in reporting the practice type and structure (for example, sole practice, small firm, large practice) of the solicitors charged with misconduct matters. Proceedings are determined by state-based tribunals and, on occasions, by state Supreme Courts by way of appeal. The data from the disciplinary regime relating to both sole and sole general practitioners is negligible. In some decisions, the facts recited in the case relating to the purported misconduct identify that the respondent is a sole practitioner. Rarely, is there reference to general practice, thus demonstrating the invisibility of this cohort.

The experiences of three sole general practitioners are referenced in order to illustrate the nature of some forms of sole general practice and some perceptions of the role of these lawyers in their local communities. This analysis is examined in the context of public documents addressing the skewed evaluation of pro bono work and the gap in access to the law, particularly in rural areas.

In summary, the method applied in this article provides evidence supporting the thesis that sole general practitioners are invisible within the broader cohort of sole practitioners. As a result, this evidence discloses a deficiency in our knowledge and understanding of general legal practice as managed by sole practitioners. Identifying and defining the sole general practitioner is critical to understanding their role in the provision of legal services.

As represented in the diagram below, sole general practitioners are a separate practice group to both specialist sole practitioners, for example, in family or criminal law, and small two to four partner firms.^[24] General practice is not defined, but rather harks back to the ‘traditional’ sole practitioner who undertook a range of domestic law, such as conveyancing, wills and small business work.^[25] These sole general practitioners offer a diverse practice in an era when specialisation is considered by the profession to be the preferred option, as evidenced by the expanding areas of specialisation nominated by law societies.^[26]

In Australia, there is no data as to the population of solicitors practising as sole general practitioners. Knowledge of their population would recognise their critical contribution to the service of clients as lawyers with broad expertise in the law. Rather than acknowledgment as a discrete cohort, analysis of the numerical data identifies the absence of a delineation between sole practitioners and sole general practitioners.

The most comprehensive data concerning solicitors and their practices is published by the NSW Law Society through its commissioned National Profile of Solicitors. Initially published in 2011, then 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020 and 2022,^[27] these Profiles are the first attempt to gather a national snapshot of solicitors for the purpose of accurately recording their population, including the number of practitioners in defined cohorts within the profession. The cohorts are private practice, corporate legal, government legal and ‘other’.^[28] The private practice category is divided into sole practitioner, two to four partners, five to 10 partners, 11 to 20 partners, 21 to 39 partners and 40 or more partners.^[29] In each reporting year, sole practitioners and sole practice firms constitute the largest cohort of private practice solicitors and firms. Table 1 shows the percentage of solicitors in private practice by firm size from 2011 to 2022.

The first Profile in 2011 notes that 29.8% of solicitors were working in sole practice compared to 23.1% of practitioners in large law firms of 40 or more partners.^[30] By 2022, this percentage had increased to 41% of sole practitioners, in comparison with a decrease to 12% of firms of 40 or more partners.^[31]

Table 1: Percentage of solicitors in private practice in Australia by firm size in 2011, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020 and 2022^[32]

	*Number of Solicitors*
	2011	2014	2016	2018	2020	2022
Sole practitioner	29.8%	30.6%	30.3%	38%	41%	41%
2-4 partners	18.4%	19.0%	19.6%	15%	19%	19%
5-10 partners	11.1%	11.5%	11.4%	7%	7%	7%
11-20 partners	9.2%	8.8%	9.0%	6%	7%	6%
21-39 partners	8.0%	7.0%	7.2%	7%	8%	7%
40+ partners	23.1%	23.1%	22.4%	10%	11%	12%
Unknown	0.4%	0.0%	0.1%	17%	7%	7%
*Total*	*100%* *(41,737)*	*100%* *(46,163)*	*100%* *(48,241)*	*100%* *(52,893)*	*100%* *(56,185)*	*100%* *(60,210)*

Despite the rise in globalisation of the profession through, firstly, the increase of multi-partnered, large commercial firms with international corporate clients and secondly, mergers of overseas commercial practices with Australian corporate firms, the reported number of sole practitioners has increased notably over the last 12 years, whilst the percentage of firms of 40 or more partners has halved. This shift is puzzling, particularly as large corporate firms with an international presence are seen as the prize for top-performing law graduates^[33] and are the focus of professional publications.^[34] Possible reasons for the shift are the move of some solicitors from large corporate practice to their own businesses,^[35] and the increasing number of solicitors exceeding the available places in existing private firms, thus compelling some to secure their own position as a sole practitioner. There may also be a correlation between the increase in the number of law schools in Australia,^[36] and the greater competition for available places.

In essence, whilst a statistical analysis is siloed in its impact, this data reveals that sole practitioners dominate the private profession. Notably, data as to the percentage of sole general practitioners is not collected. The bundling of sole and sole general practitioners precludes the ability to identify the cohort size of sole solicitors in general practice. This deficit is significant, revealing a fundamental gap in knowledge of the profession’s most public-facing cohort.

This has not always been the case. The cohort of general practitioners was visible in earlier sociological studies. While studies of lawyers in Australia are uncommon, particularly in comparison to the United States where research into the legal profession has included sole practitioners (referred to as solo attorneys),^[37] two studies in the 1970s acknowledged general practice as a distinct form of practice. Hetherton’s survey of 2,699 Victorian solicitors in 1976/77 identified different cohorts of solicitors categorised by six typologies – ‘Property Practitioner’, ‘Personal Plight Practitioner’, ‘Commercial Practitioner’, ‘Workers’ Compensation Practitioner’, ‘Taxation Practitioner’ and ‘Residual Practitioner’.^[38] The final typology of Residual Practitioner is the general practitioner, who Hetherton notes ‘failed to meet the classification criteria of other type of practitioners’ based on aggregate hours in specified practice areas.^[39]

Similar to Hetherton’s methodological approach, Tomasic and Bullard surveyed over 600 NSW lawyers in 1977 and proposed four typologies: ‘Litigation Lawyer’, ‘Property Lawyer’, ‘Commercial Lawyer’ and ‘Generalist’.^[40] Akin to Hetherton’s ‘Residual Practitioner’, Tomasic and Bullard define the ‘Generalist’ as ‘those lawyers who could not be allocated to any cluster’.^[41] Referencing Hetherton’s study, Tomasic notes similarities between the categories of solicitors and their proportions across the two jurisdictions, including 34.8% of NSW solicitors as ‘Generalists’ in parallel with 34% of Victorian solicitors as ‘Residual Practitioners’.^[42]

The relevance of this work is limited given its age. These studies must be reviewed in the context of their time. They occurred prior to the emergence of the corporate client with a corresponding growth in career choices for graduates and before governments’ removal of solicitor’ monopoly on conveyancing^[43] and on the reduction of some areas of practice from solicitors, including personal injury and workers compensation.^[44] Notably, the value of these studies is their recognition of general practice as a distinct category in contrast to the current non-recognition of general practice. Regrettably, these studies did not result in the implementation of a systematic method of data collection and reporting of solicitors in general practice, either as sole practitioners or in larger firms.

Interestingly, Queensland solicitors have been studied in relation to disciplinary proceedings covering a seventy-five-year period from 1930 to 2005.^[45] Sole practitioners were identified as the highest cohort in disciplinary proceedings in Queensland.^[46] Sole general practitioners were not identified. This research aligns with the reporting of disciplinary cases and the lack of reference to the practice type of the solicitors who are subject to complaints and proceedings.

Reflecting this curious position of the sole general practitioner is the deficit of reference in statute and case law. In contrast, there is an understanding that the sole practitioner has exclusive responsibility for the commercial, regulatory and legal operation of the practice and, by inference, for many ethical obligations of employed lawyers, legal consultants and non-legal staff. Whilst sole practice may be considered a straightforward term, general practice is limitless in its definition. Sole practice is defined in Australian statute and case law, whereas sole general practice is not. As discussed below, the statutory definition of sole practice highlights the absence of acknowledgement of general practice as a form of sole practice.

In Australia, historically, the legal profession was regulated on a state and territory basis. The introduction of a Legal Profession Uniform Law has, to date, resulted in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia joining a national system.^[47] The Uniform Law defines a sole practitioner as ‘an Australian legal practitioner who engages in legal practice on his or her own account’.^[48] Based on this definition, sole practitioners must be operating their legal practice without the assistance of another legal practitioner (‘on his or her own account’). They may employ non-legal staff, such as paralegals, clerks, bookkeepers and conveyancers. However, the legislation is ambiguous. In the same ‘Definitions’ section, a principal of a law practice includes a sole practitioner,^[49] legislating that a principal may work with lawyers, such as employed solicitors, consultants or locums.

Queensland is one of the states and territories that has opted, to date, to not adopt the Uniform Law, remaining with the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). Although Queensland has the third largest population of solicitors (after NSW and Victoria),^[50] the reluctance to join the national profession may be due to a concern that the costs of being part of a uniform structure will be more onerous compared with the financially healthier states. The Queensland legislation does not define sole practitioner, although the Act defines principal of a law practice as including ‘a sole practitioner if the law practice is constituted by the practitioner’.^[51]

As shown in diagram 1, the sole practitioner manages a law practice, which may be a specialist or a general practice. These two categories of practice are not defined in the legislation. Therefore, determining a definition for generalist practitioner requires consideration beyond the legislative framework. Similar to the gap in legislation, regulatory decisions in case law add to the confusion, offering scant information to identify the practice details of the respondent lawyer charged with a misconduct allegation.

Disciplinary case law demonstrates a skewed representation of the legal profession where the sole or small firm practice appears to be more prominent and ‘less ethical’ than large law firm practitioners.^[52] While there is a clear presence of lawyers from small and sole practices, the lack of intention to identify practice structures confirms a lack of interest in, and understanding of, these cohorts. Reports of disciplinary cases do not commonly or formally identify the structure of lawyers’ practices or lawyers’ practice areas. The facts of the cases, whilst unclear as to the nature and structure of the respondent^[53] solicitors’ practice, imply that there is no oversight from any other principal or employed lawyers. These cases bear out the body of scholarship about discipline of the profession that identifies the disproportionate attention given to solicitors in sole and small firm practices as the main offenders in misconduct matters.^[54] Former Queensland Legal Services Commissioner, John Briton appropriately describes this as the regulators’ ‘gaze’ being focused on these practitioners rather than on corporate firms.^[55]

The disciplinary proceedings are dominated by misconduct allegations arising primarily from individual client complainants in the traditional areas of non-corporate practice. The invisibility and lack of acknowledgement of the main offenders identified as small and sole solicitors continues into the regulatory sphere. The lack of consistency with reporting practice details, such as the nature and type, demonstrates a disregard for these respondent solicitors. There is no formal recording of these details on the case reports. In some proceedings, solicitors’ practices are described as small or sole.^[56]

In other proceedings, an analysis of the facts leads to the conclusion that the solicitors were working in a small or sole practice.^[57] For example, in Legal Services Commissioner v XBY^[58] the Tribunal found that the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct for misleading clients, not following clients’ instructions and forging a document. It appears from the facts that there was no other lawyer in the practice to whom clients complained or who was aware of the respondent’s matters. Similarly, in Legal Services Commissioner v De Fraine,^[59] the respondent’s ability to post information on social media that breached client confidentiality appears also to have been unchecked or unnoticed, suggesting that he was in sole practice.

Occasionally, sole practice is emphasised for its challenges and the solicitor’s level of competence. In Council of the Law Society of NSW v Lo (No 2),^[60] the respondent solicitor submitted to the Tribunal:

This is the first time I have ever endeavoured to handle trust funds. In hindsight, I should have attended some account-keeping courses or engaged a professional accountant to assist me in this regard. However, the stress and pressure of my sole practice overtook all my working hours (and most of my personal hours) to the extent that I over-looked this. I accept this should not be an excuse as I am a sole practitioner.^[61]

In Legal Services Commissioner v Loel,^[62] the Tribunal noted that the respondent solicitor: ‘On all accounts, he had a very successful practice, but carried a very heavy workload which set the scene for some of the difficulties which he subsequently encountered.’^[63] The difficulties included separation and divorce, children with health challenges, long working hours and personal litigation.

There is even less certainty in identifying whether a respondent is in general practice. Many cases before the Tribunal relate to trust account breaches. In cases that relate to general mismanagement of the trust account, a range of practice areas and matters where clients’ monies have been misappropriated, is often described. Solicitors are required to maintain a trust account for each of their clients’ separate matters. The extent of clients’ monies in trust across a range of practice areas is an indicator of general practice.^[64]

References in case law report on duties rather than definitions. For example, solicitors have a duty to be competent.^[65] Competence for a sole general practitioner means the ability to work capably across several areas. A challenge with general practice is its potentially limitless number of legal areas, and whether solicitors feel a duty to take matters on despite unfamiliarity with an area to maintain their clients’ patronage. Unlike barristers who can refuse a matter if they do not practise in an area of law,^[66] solicitors are considered to have an ethical duty to act for a client in an area in which they are competent. In the case of sole practitioners, they are the lone assessor of their competence.^[67]

In contrast to statute and case law, the international professional and academic literature recognises general practice as an area of legal work. Descriptions of a general practice include ‘areas appropriate to clientele’,^[68] ‘matters in a variety of areas’^[69], ‘broad’ practice’^[70] and generalists as practising in four areas^[71]. There are no similar contemporary definitions of general legal practice in Australia.

In contrast, general practice in medicine is well understood. Law and medicine are often coupled, and lawyers and doctors often compared, particularly in relation to the power of their professional associations,^[72] the status achieved by entry to the profession^[73] and the contributions that they make to society.^[74] A possible reason for the lack of a well-used definition for general legal practice is the assumption that general practice is akin to the medical GP, where the lawyer in general practice looks after ‘all things legal’. This assumption aligns with the popular comparison between doctors and lawyers. The common feature shared by legal and medical general practitioners is their role in providing access to services for individual clients and patients.

A definition of general practice will enable these legal practitioners to be counted, and accounted for, within the broader solicitors’ profession. Such a definition will also recognise that general practice, as with medicine, is a discrete speciality and can be acknowledged as one that provides broad access to the law and meets the range of legal needs of clients. Recognition of sole general practitioners enables their unique experiences and their contributions to their communities to be examined.

In order to define the sole general practitioner, the statutory definition of sole practitioner must be contextually extended, beyond ‘on his or her account’, to allow for an additional category of criteria, namely the scope of work attributed to general practice. Central to this criterion is the overarching question of what a generalist is expected to be able to do. A ‘generalist’ is a solicitor who practises in several areas of the law in order to meet the legal needs of a community, mainly comprising of individuals and small business. The community assumes the generalist is competent in these areas of the law, and this expectation of competence is embedded in the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules.^[75]

Drawing on empirical research from the US and UK, some headway can be made towards offering a definition of the sole general practitioner in the Australian context. The themes from this research, coupled with the rise of solicitors’ specialisation in legal practice leads to a proposed definition of general practice as the provision of legal services in at least three practice areas.

This definition builds on others applied to general legal practice in the US and the UK. Levin’s research into US solo and small firm attorneys offers a definition of general practice as four practice areas.^[76] Levin bases this definition on interviews with 41 solo and small firm attorneys in 2001, finding that one third were ‘true general practitioners’.^[77] She notes:

This description of a mixed practice is an entrenched structure of US firms, despite the growth of large international practices. Hunter et al identify the persistence of sole practitioners ‘with more generalised expertise’^[79]due to the intention of large firms to focus on specialising in the legal needs of corporate and government clients.^[80]

The 2012 UK report A Time of Change: Solicitors’ Firms in England and Wales^[81] categorises practice as ‘narrow’, being a single category of practice where 90% of work is in one area, and ‘broad’, being less than 25% of work in each area across all practice areas.^[82] Applying this approach, broad practice also equates to a minimum of four practice areas. Sommerlad et al have identified traditional practice areas as conveyancing, non-continuous cases and preparatory litigation matters. These constitute a mixed practice.^[83]

Additionally, specialisation in particular practice areas has informed the meaning of general practice. Accreditation in specific practice areas was first introduced in Victoria in 1985.^[84] According to Lauw, this accreditation was intended to formalise the ‘de facto’ specialisation that had developed as a result of the ‘increasing volume and complexity of the law’^[85]. The effect of specialist accreditation may well have been a reduction in the number of general practitioners, as some saw specialisation in such areas as family law, criminal law, or wills and estates as a viable option to general practice. Specialisation allowed for a narrowing of areas in which to develop expertise, a decrease in possible complaints and the potential for an increase in clients, through referrals based on reputation as an expert.

A more nuanced approach to general practice takes into consideration the increasing complexity of traditional practice areas, with several developing distinct adjunct areas. For example, wills have developed into powers of attorney, trusts, testamentary intentions and family provision claims; business law has developed into greater compliance in relation to taxation and accounting matters; and family law has experienced an increase in matters involving parentage and international treaties. Rather than the four areas of practice applied by Levin in her study and hinted at in the UK report, it is proposed that three areas acknowledge this complexity.

The increasing complexity of the law and the growth of adjunct areas has necessitated lawyers having to expand their legal knowledge and competency beyond traditional core areas. Since the definitions of Levin (2004) and in the UK report (2012), specialisation in legal practice has grown.^[86] Three, rather than the four practice areas proposed by Levin and the UK report, are suitable for the definition of the minimum required for a solicitor to be considered a ‘generalist’. The move to specialisation in legal practice emphasises the non-specialist lawyers who practise in more than one area of the law. In an era of specialisation, solicitors who offer legal services in three areas can be viewed as having a broad practice.

Furthermore, the criterion of three areas covers a diverse range of transactional or litigious matters for which clients consult lawyers, such as conveyancing, wills and estates, personal injury, family law, local court and small business. Practitioners frequently advertise the availability of three or more practice areas on webpages or in the front window of their premises. Finally, three areas provide delineation from the specialist, who concentrates on one or two areas of practice.

A definition of general practice will acknowledge this practice type as a unique speciality akin to that of the medical profession, where general practice in medicine is regarded as a ‘specialty’.

Private practitioners are not usually regarded as a sector of the profession that facilitates access to legal services. Unlike legal aid, government or community lawyers, they rely on billings as their income source. However, access to legal services is applicable to these private solicitors given the range of their practice and the possible need to secure additional income, albeit poorly paid legal aid or pro bono work, with the intention of growing their presence and reputation. Their presence is evidenced through advertising in local papers and virtual platforms, through shopfront displays of their practice areas and through involvement in their communities, for example, on school, cultural or sporting committees or as members of local associations. As such, sole general practitioners provide a range of legal services to clients and undertake pro bono work, thus facilitating access to the law.

Access to the law is not freely available to all groups within the community. Many rely on legal aid, free assistance from community legal centres, government services and pro bono work. Access to the law can be categorised into three cohorts. One cohort is those who qualify for legal aid. Another is those who are the recipients of pro bono work. The third cohort is the most relevant group for private practitioners, being prospective clients who are excluded from legal services because of a lack of financial means, yet they do not qualify for free assistance. This third cohort, described by the Australian Government Productivity Commission in its Access to Justice Arrangements report as the ‘missing middle’,^[87] are those outside of the:

These groups fall within the ‘justice gap’, described by Daicoff as those who are ‘too rich for legal aid yet too poor for private lawyers’.^[89] This ‘missing middle’, whilst not having the financial capacity to fully fund legal services from the private profession, may be able to afford the services of sole general practitioners on the basis that fees will generally be lower than larger private firms.

There is, however, piecemeal acknowledgement that the small and sole practices within the private profession have a role in the facilitation of access to legal services.^[90] It is likely that solicitors, particularly in rural areas, would be considered by clients as the local lawyer in all matters, regardless of whether the practitioner is a specialist or generalist. The 2013 Affordable Justice study conducted by the RMIT Centre for Innovative Justice noted two critical findings relevant to sole general practitioners. The first finding highlighted the piecemeal acknowledgement of the facilitation of access to legal services by small and sole practices.^[91] Following, there was a need to promote sole and small firms within their local communities, ‘including any discounted work they may do’.^[92]

The work of the private profession in facilitating access to the law was previously identified in 2009 by the Law Council of Australia and the Law Institute of Victoria in their study of 1,185 country solicitors. The Rural, Regional and Remote Areas Lawyers’ Survey, which found that rural, regional and remote practitioners undertook significant pro bono and unpaid voluntary work.^[93] Over 64% of firms undertook pro bono work and 71% of lawyers undertook unpaid voluntary work.^[94] The findings describe rural, regional and remote lawyers as ‘integral to country communities’,^[95] predicting that the absence of solicitors will ‘impact negatively on rural and regional commercial infrastructure and also on the community life of country towns.^[96]

The disregard for the contribution of sole and small firms in the reporting of pro bono work was identified in the Productivity Commission’s report.^[97] Pro bono work is defined by the Australian Pro Bono Centre as ‘the provision of legal services on a free or significantly reduced fee basis, with no expectation of a commercial return’.^[98] Pro bono work is considered the flagship of the private profession’s contribution to legal services, although it is captured in a way that promotes the work of the corporate firms and ignores the contributions of sole and small firm practices. The Commission identified the evaluative model used to assess pro bono work as the reason for a lack of understanding of the private profession’s ‘long tradition of providing legal services free of charge’.^[99]

Noting this restrictive model, Justice Connect submitted to the Commission that individual recipients of pro bono work constitute less than 3% of services with most pro bono work being for not-for-profits. The significance of this was acknowledged: ‘[S]mall firm lawyers are valuable pro bono providers, as their (paid) legal experience is more likely to be relevant to pro bono cases and can have a substantial impact, particularly in smaller, more disadvantaged communities’.^[100]

In the Law Council of Australia’s 2018 Justice Project Final Report, the contribution of sole practitioners, together with small and medium firms, to pro bono services was recognised with the acknowledgement that reporting of this work is skewed towards large firms. The report noted that the identification of pro bono hours by the Australian Pro Bono Centre relates to the work of large law firms.^[101] The report also included a relevant submission from Regional Alliance West about legal and non-legal work undertaken by the private profession within communities recognising:

Recognition of pro bono work aligns with the National Pro Bono Aspirational Target, which has a small number of signatories and is in place primarily for firms that tender for Federal Government work and are required to disclose their pro bono commitment as part of the tender process. At the time of the Commission’s report, the signatories to the Target were overwhelmingly from the corporate sector, with 95% being firms of 50 plus lawyers.^[103] In its 2023 reporting of national pro bono targets, the National Pro Bono Centre reported that the 57 large firms (50 or more lawyers) completed an average of 36.6 hours per lawyer of pro bono services while small firms (fewer than 50 lawyers) undertook an average of 50.22 hours per lawyer. Reference was made to the hours of ‘Individuals’ (defined as Solicitors and Barristers), although no details as to the nature and structure of their practices were reported.^[104]

Recognition and evaluation of the contribution of sole and small private practices to the delivery of low or no fee legal services is key to the broader discussion as to the meaning and purpose of pro bono targets. An inclusive and balanced approach to the pro bono framework in Australia will shift the paradigm to encompass the entire private profession.

Three sole general practitioners^[105] in rural and regional New South Wales offer insights into the key role that local solicitors have in their communities, including access to the law. A consideration of their approach to their clients, particularly in relation to fees coupled with their role in the community supports the finding that the provision of access to the law is part of their practice, despite their private practice business and its reliance on income from fees. These practitioners offer an illustration of the work of country solicitors and their role in the community.

David was a sole general practitioner in a regional area of NSW. He practised in wills and estates, powers of attorney, enduring guardianships, conveyancing, family provision claims, leasing and business law. David was involved in his local community through service on boards and committees. He also gave community-based presentations in the area of wills and estates.

David likened the role of a sole practitioner to that of a general medical practitioner, with the ability to discuss problems face-to-face and provide that ‘little bit of extra service’. He spoke of the advantages of knowing the community and being able to provide additional service:

Gavin was also a sole general practitioner in a regional area of NSW. He practised in family law, business law, conveyancing, litigation and wills and estates. He has been a sole practitioner for 14 years; prior to this, he was an employed solicitor for approximately 17 years. Gavin’s reason for opting for sole practice was as an alternative to his previous experience as an employed solicitor. He worked for a sole principal who ran a large practice that, as Gavin described, was ‘operating a meat-grinder where clients would be fed in one end’.

The majority of Gavin’s clients were referred from previous or existing clients. He reduced his fees for clients who were not able to afford full fees. He had also previously undertaken legal aid work, although he ceased this work because of its low remuneration.

Gavin described himself as having ‘fairly strong community ethics’. Examples of this include locally-based initiatives that he organised, supporting charities, sponsoring the local football club and financially assisting a local athlete. His strong interest in education had led him to volunteer in the Law Society’s mock trial competition for high school students, to give lectures in legal studies at the local high school, as well as teach in a community program for young entrepreneurs.

Lara was the sole principal of a practice in rural NSW. She was the only permanent solicitor in the town. Lara practised in conveyancing, powers of attorney, wills and estates, land and environment court cases, water, rural leasing, by consent family law matters and elder law. In 2017, Lara became the sole principal of the firm in which she had been an employed solicitor, as a result of the passing of her husband, who had been the sole principal. She had worked in the firm from the commencement of her legal career as a clerk 39 years ago. When speaking about the decision to continue her late husband’s practice, Lara explained that she ‘wasn’t prepared to walk out on my staff and walk out on the community’.

Lara’s clients were individuals and businesses from across the state. She did work for no cost as well as low fees. One of her client bases were older clients for whom she undertook non-chargeable work, such as assisting with administration matters, for example, dealing with Centrelink. Lara’s work with the elderly included referrals from the local retirement village, where she saw clients, as well as home visits. Being mindful of elder abuse by families, she was focused on protecting her clients. She provided initial free advice to ‘walk-in’ clients and, given her street-front location, members of the local community would ‘drop in’ to her office. Lara singled out the vulnerability of farmers during the drought who sought her advice, some of which was quasi-legal. She assisted with free legal advice as well as providing a space for these clients to confidentially express their grief and worry.

Like David and Gavin, Lara had a strong sense of community, which was evidenced through her references to her staff, her children’s school, the church, and the generosity of the local community, particularly when her father passed away.

These three sole general practitioners completed matters for clients at either reduced fees or for no fee. As Gavin stated: ‘I think almost every sole practitioner does do reduced-fee work’. Gavin’s observation of the common occurrence of reduced fee work, coupled with the practice of not charging some clients in particular situations, recognises the significant amount of unacknowledged pro bono work undertaken by sole practitioners.

VI Conclusion

Sole general practitioners are an invisible and abandoned cohort within the solicitors’ branch of the Australian legal profession. Their population is not known, they are not defined, their work as private practitioners is inconclusive and their contribution to their communities untold. Despite this, they are an enduring cohort within the legal profession.

Individually and collectively, these solicitors have a critical role in the provision of legal services to non-corporate clients across city, suburban, rural and remote regions. These solicitors, despite their private practice status, act for clients for reduced or no fees. Their contribution to the facilitation of access to the law is, to a limited extent, acknowledged. However, the extent of discounted work is not known. Compared with the publicised pro bono work of the large corporate firms, the work of sole general practitioners (and sole and small firms) remains unidentified and unacknowledged. This gap in our understanding of the contribution of different cohorts of lawyers, apart from the large corporate firms, to the facilitation of access to the law is neither justifiable nor reflective of the legal profession.

Sole general practice is a discrete area of legal practice that differs from specialist sole and small firm practice. Sole generalists have unique interests and needs, including sustainable client engagement, efficiencies through technology and continuous professional development across a range of areas. They are the lone decision makers in relation to client engagement, areas of practice and their competency to undertake work in particular matters. Despite their distinctiveness, they are not regarded by professional associations or regulators as a separate cohort of legal service providers. Indeed, their presence is hidden in the reporting on sole practitioners more generally. There is a deficit of knowledge and understanding of their practice, their clients and their contribution to their communities, including their pro bono work. Whilst the population of sole solicitors in known, the population of sole general practitioners is an enigma. In order to accurately report on the percentage of sole general practitioners within the solicitor’s branch of the profession, there must first be a definition of general practice. This article proposes a definition as three or more areas of legal practice.

The legal profession is facing change – rapid and unheralded. There is an increasing acknowledgement that AI-driven innovation is ‘disrupting’ society, prompting a shift from the ‘old ways’ to a calling to embrace the ‘new world’. In exploring the impact of change, such as the extent and the likely consequences of technology on access to legal services, it is important to understand the curious role of the sole general practitioner within the solicitors’ profession, for the benefit of these lawyers, their clients and their communities.

^[1] Hilary Sommerlad and Ole Hammerslev, ‘Introduction Studying Lawyers Comparatively in the 21^st Century’ in Richard L Abel et al (eds), Lawyers in 21^stCentury Societies (Hart Publishing, 2021) vol 2, 2.

^[2] In 2022, 77% of Queensland law practices were a sole practice, whilst 12% were practices of two to four partners or principals. Urbis and Law Society of New South Wales, 2022 National Profile of Solicitors: Final Report (Report, 26 April 2023) 30 <2022 National Profile of Solicitors - Final.pdf (lawsociety.com.au)> (‘2022 National Profile of Solicitors’).

^[3] In 2022, 84% of law practices across all Australian jurisdictions were a sole practice, whilst 9% were practices of two to four partners or principals. Ibid.

^[6] The solicitors, referred to in this article, do not include law academics, lawyers in public service, community or in-house lawyers or lawyers who have moved into roles such as politicians and political staffers.

^[7] These states and territory are South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. An independent Bar is maintained in these states and territory. Tasmania and the Northern Territory also maintain a fused profession with a very small independent Bar. Australian Bar Association, ‘What is the Bar?’ ABA Australian Bar Association (Web Page, November 2024) <https://austbar.asn.au/for-the-community/what-is-the-bar>.

^[8] Barristers are allowed to take instructions from clients without an instructing solicitor. Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Barristers’ Conduct Rules 2015 r 22. These instructions are known as direct access. They are not common and are usually restricted to local court and criminal matters. See Dominic Toomey, ‘Direct Access Briefs – Avoiding the Pitfalls’ (Bar Practice Course New South Wales Bar Association, 30 March 2016) < Direct_Access_Briefs_-_Avoiding_the_Pitfalls1.pdf (nswbar.asn.au)>.

^[10] This clustering is also evident in academic literature. In the United States, references to solo and small firm practices as a collective are found in Carlin’s study of New York lawyers referred to in Leslie C Levin, ‘Preliminary Reflections on the Professional Development of Solo and Small Law Firm Practitioners’ (2001) 70(3) Fordham Law Review 847, 850.

^[11] A legal director is the principal of an incorporated law practice. Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) s 6.

^[12] This is the definition of a small practice applied in the ‘2022 National Profile of Solicitors’ Final Report (n 2) 29.

^[16] The image of the city-based law firm with expansive, expensive views is represented in the novel and movie Hell has Harbour Views. Richard Beasley, Hell Has Harbour Views (Pan Macmillan, 2001); Hell Has Harbour Views (ABC Australia, Ian Collie and Prue Fletcher, 2005).

^[17] The image of well-dressed personnel was represented in the book by Lisa Pryor, The Pinstriped Prison (Picador Australia, 2008).

^[18] Legal Services Commission Queensland, Annual Report 2022-23 (Report, 2023) 11.

^[19] In 2022 in Queensland, 21% of solicitors practised in the suburbs and 8% practised in country areas. ‘2022 National Profile of Solicitors’ Final’ (n 2) 35. The Queensland Law Society has established 15 District Law Associations outside of Brisbane. <https://www.qls.com.au/Practising-law-in-Qld/Working-as-a-solicitor/District-Law-Associations>.

^[20] The Castle (n 14); Fisk (Origma Productions Pty Ltd, Kitty Flanagan and Vincent Sheehan, 2021, 2022 and 2024).

^[21] In the National Profile of Solicitors, these areas are referred to as ‘country/rural’, ‘2022 National Profile of Solicitors’ (n 2) 34.

^[22] Maxine Evers, ‘The Long Lonely Road of the Sole General Practitioner: Towards Definition, Knowledge and Endurance’ (PhD Thesis, La Trobe University, 2021). Three regional practitioners were selected because of their visible role in their communities, with clients seeking their general services. Interviews with 23 practitioners were conducted between 2017 and 2018. The interviews applied a phenomenological methodology and were approximately one hour in duration. The interviews with Lara and Gavin were conducted in person. The interview with David was conducted by phone.

^[23] The flawed data is because of the lack of a common approach to data collection and reporting of the participating seven law societies and the Victorian Legal Services Board, and the incorrect recording of data by some associations. Urbis and Law Society of New South Wales, 2018 National Profile of Solicitors: Final Report (Report, 17 July 2019) <https://www.lawsociety.com.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/2018%20National%20Profile%20of%20Solicitors.pdf> (‘2018 National Profile of Solicitors’) 4. The 2022 National Profile noted Note: ‘Sole practice includes sole practices and one principal practices. Different methods are used across jurisdictions for defining sole practices and one principal practices, therefore these categories have been combined.’ ‘2022 National Profile of Solicitors’ (n 2) 29.

^[24] Small firms are defined as two to four partners in the ‘2022 National Profile of Solicitors’ (n 2) 29.

^[25] Margaret Thornton and Asmi Wood, ‘Australia’ in Richard L Abel et al (eds), (n 1) 50.

^[26] The growth of specialisation is evidenced by the number of areas of accredited specialisation. The Law Society of New South Wales (‘NSW Law Society’) offers 17 areas of accredited specialisation – see ‘Specialist Accreditation Scheme’, Law Society of New South Wales (Web Page, 2024) <https://www.lawsociety.com.au/for-the-public/going-court-and-working-with-lawyers/specialist-accreditation-scheme>. The Queensland Law Society offers 11 areas of accredited specialisation – see ‘Specialist Accreditation’, Queensland Law Society (Web Page, 2024) < Specialist Accreditation - Queensland Law Society>. The Law Institute of Victoria offer 16 areas of specialisation – see Become an Accredited Specialist, Law Institute of Victoria (Web Page, 2024) <Become an Accredited Specialist (liv.asn.au)>. In 1985, Victoria was the first state to offer specialist accreditation with the one practice area of family law. By 1994, there were eight areas of accredited specialisation. Inge Lauw, ‘Specialisation, Accreditation and the Legal Profession in Australia and Canada’ (1994) 1(2) Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law [6.4].

^[27] Urbis and Law Society of New South Wales, 2011 Law Society National Profile: Final Report (Report, July 2012) (‘2011 Law Society National Profile’); Urbis and Law Society of New South Wales, 2014 Law Society National Profile: Final Report (Report, April 2015) https://urbis.com.au/app/uploads/2015/05/2014-Law-Society-National-Profile.pdf; Urbis and Law Society of New South Wales, National Profile of Solicitors 2016: Report (Report, 24 August 2017) <https://www.lawsociety.com.au/sites/default/files/2018-04/NATIONAL%20PROFILE%20OF%20SOLICITORS%202016.compressed.pdf> (‘2016 National Profile of Solicitors’); Urbis and Law Society of New South Wales, (‘2018 National Profile of Solicitors’) (n 21); Urbis and Law Society of New South Wales, 2020 National Profile of Solicitors: Final Report (Report, 1 July 2020) (Report, 1 July 2021) https://www.lawsociety.com.au/sites/default/files/2021-07/2020%20National%20Profile%20of%20Solicitors%20-%20Final%20-%201%20July%202021.pdf (‘2020 National Profile of Solicitors’); Urbis and Law Society of New South Wales, (‘2022 National Profile of Solicitors’) (n 2) 39. The 2024 National Profile has not been published at the date of this article’s submission.

^[28] Urbis and Law Society of New South Wales, (‘2022 National Profile of Solicitors’) (n 2) 39.

^[30] Urbis and Law Society of New South Wales, (‘2011 Law Society National Profile’) (n 27) 15.

^[31] Urbis and Law Society of New South Wales, (‘2022 National Profile of Solicitors’) (n 2) 29.

^[32] This table is based on the data published in the NSW Law Society’s National Profile of Solicitors in 2011, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020 and 2022. Urbis and Law Society of New South Wales, ‘National Profile of Solicitors 2016’ (n 25) 27, table 12. A different method for presenting the number of firm structures within the private profession is utilised in the 2018, 2020 and 2022 reports, which do not include the percentage increase in firm sizes. Urbis and Law Society of New South Wales, ‘2018 National Profile of Solicitors’ (n 23) 28, figure 22, Urbis and Law Society of New South Wales, ‘2020 National Profile of Solicitors’ (n 27) 30, figure 22. Urbis and Law Society of New South Wales, (‘2022 National Profile of Solicitors’) (n 2) 32, figure 22.

^[34] Examples of professional publications featuring large corporate firms include Lawyers Weekly (Web Page) <About us - Lawyers Weekly> and Thomson Reuters, State of the Legal Services Market (Report, 2023) <2023 Australia: State of the Legal Market Report — Navigating towards prosperity amid challenges - Thomson Reuters Institute>.

^[35] Levin describes these lawyers as ‘big firm refugees’. Levin (n 10) 849.

^[36] The website of the Council of Australian Law Deans lists 41 law schools. Australia’s Law Schools (Web Page) <Australia’s Law Schools – Studying Law in Australia (cald.asn.au)>.

^[37] Jerome E Carlin, Lawyers on their Own: A Study of Individual Practitioners in Chicago (Rutgers University Press, 1962); Jerome E Carlin, Lawyers’ Ethics: A Survey of the New York City Bar (Russell Sage Foundation, 1966); Levin (n 10) ; Leslie C. Levin, ‘The Ethical World of Solo and Small Law Firm Practitioners’ (2004) 41(2) Houston Law Review 309; Carroll Seron, ‘New Strategies for Getting Clients: Urban and Suburban Lawyers’ Views’ (1993) 27(2) Law & Society Review 399; Carroll Seron, The Business of Practicing Law: The Work Lives of Solo and Small-Firm Attorneys (Temple University Press, 1996); Carroll Seron, ‘The Status of Legal Professionalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century: Chicago Lawyers and Urban Lawyers’ (2007) 32(2) Law & Social Inquiry 581.

^[40] Roman Tomasic and Cedric George Bullard, Lawyers and Their Work in New South Wales: Preliminary Report (Law Foundation of New South Wales, 1978) 103.

^[43] From the early 1990s, some state and territory governments in Australia legislated for the licensing of conveyancers to undertake the sale and purchase of land. This was work that had previously been restricted to solicitors. For example, NSW passed the Conveyancers Licensing Act in 1992.

^[44] From the late 1990s, the assessment of damages for less serious personal injury and workers compensation claims were transferred from the courts and the work of solicitors to statutory bodies. For example, NSW passed the Motor Accidents Compensation Act and the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act in 1999.

^[45] Linda Haller, ‘Solicitors’ Disciplinary Hearings in Queensland 1930-2000: A Statistical Analysis’ [2001] BondLawRw 1; (2001) 13(1) Bond Law Review 1; Leslie Levin, ‘Building a Better Lawyer Discipline System: The Queensland Experience’ (2006) 9(2) Legal Ethics 187; Linda Haller and Heather Green, ‘Solicitor’s Swan Song?: A Statistical Update on Lawyer Discipline in Queensland’ [2007] BondLawRw 6; (2007) 19(1) Bond Law Review 140.

^[53] In most disciplinary cases, the solicitor facing misconduct charges is the respondent as the proceedings are commenced by the regulator, for example, in New South Wales (NSW), the NSW Law Society or the NSW Legal Services Commissioner.

^[54] See John Briton, The Changing Face of Lawyer Regulation (Presentation, 47th Annual Vincents’ QLS Symposium, 28 March 2009) <https://www.lsc.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/106195/changing-face-of-lawyer-regulation.pdf; Kath Hall, Tough Love: Professional Regulation of Lawyer Dishonesty (Research Paper No 13–11, ANU College of Law, 9 August 2013). <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2307325>; Haller (n 43) 1; Haller and Green (n 43) 151.

^[56] For example, in Rainmaker Investments Pty Ltd v Resolute Legal Pty Ltd [2018] QCATA 77, the respondent was described as a ‘sole practitioner’. In Legal Services Commissioner v Loel {2020] QCAT 326, the respondent was the ‘sole signatory and operator of the trust account’. In Legal Services Commissioner v Sewell (No 2) [2023] QCAT 374, the respondent was identified as the ‘sole legal practitioner director’. In Law Society of New South Wales v McElvenny [2002] NSWADT 166, the respondent was described as ‘a solicitor in sole practice’ [1]. In Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Kernaghan [2021] NSWCATOD 111, the Tribunal referred to the respondent’s ‘sole practice’ throughout the decision. In Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Hunter [2021] NSWCATOD 22, it was noted that the respondent was the principal of his firm [1]. In Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Alkhair [2022] NSWCATOD 111, the Tribunal noted that the respondent was a sole practitioner at [22 & 23].

^[57] For example, in Law Society of New South Wales v Hinde [2005] NSWADT 199, there is no reference to the respondent being a sole practitioner. However, the circumstances of his misconduct, being failure to honour an undertaking in a conveyancing matter, and the fact that he submitted good character references from a sole practitioner highlight that he may have been a sole practitioner.

^[64] In Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Davidson [2020] NSWCATOD 71, the sole practitioner misappropriated trust funds across various matters and intermixed money. Whilst she had been a solicitor for 17 years, only three of those had been in sole practice with her earlier practice as a government legal officer. The Tribunal accepted medical evidence, character references, the fact that clients did not lose money and the respondent’s remorse. Findings of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct were made, and the respondent allowed a restricted practising certificate. In Law Society of New South Wales v Portale [2001] NSWADT 68, the respondent was found guilty of misconduct in relation to breaches of the trust account in estate and conveyancing matters as well as a workers’ compensation and a lease matter. His name was removed from the roll. In Law Society of New South Wales v Cornell No 2 [2006] NSWADT 308, the Tribunal found wilful breaches of the trust account leading to professional misconduct. Evidence from the Law Society was that the respondent had taken ‘his eye off the ball with respect to the Trust Account’ due to his increased interest in property development with his solicitor work reduced to a few matters [39]. The respondent was fined $8,000 and given a public reprimand. He also gave an undertaking not to apply for a practising certificate for five years. In Legal Services Commissioner v Slipper [2019] QCAT 146, the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct in relation to estate and family law matters, as well as a power of attorney. Orders were made for his name to be removed from the roll.

^[66] Barristers can refuse a matter if it is an area in which they do not have the ‘capacity, skill and experience’. Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Barristers’ Conduct Rules 2015 r 17.

^[67] Solicitors have an ethical duty to ‘act in the best interest of their client’ (r 4.1.1) and to ‘deliver legal services competently, diligently and as promptly as reasonably practicable’ (r 4.1.3.) Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (n 65).

^[68] Canadian Bar Association’s definition of general practitioner quoted in Lauw (n 26) [8.4.2].

^[69] ‘Solo, Small Firm and General Practice Division’, American Bar Association (Web Page, 2020) <https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/>.

^[70] Broad is defined as ‘less than 25% of work across all categories’, being eight areas of work listed in Table 4 in Pascoe Pleasence, Nigel Balmer and Richard Moorhead, A Time of Change: Solicitors’ Firms in England and Wales (Report, commissioned by the UK Law Society, Legal Services Board & Ministry of Justice, July 2012) 14 <http://www.pascoepleasence.com/_Media/A%20Time%20of%20Change.pdf> .

^[72] Dare notes the power of the institutional roles of lawyers, doctors and police. Tim Dare, ‘Robust Role-Obligation: How do Roles Make a Moral Difference?’ (2016) 50(4) Journal of Value Inquiry 703, 704.

^[73] See Robert Dingwall and Philip Lewis (eds), The Sociology of the Professions: Lawyers, Doctors and Others (Macmillan, 1983).

^[74] JP Nieuwenhuysen, Professions in the Marketplace: An Australian Study of Lawyers, Doctors, Accountants and Dentists (Melbourne University Press, 1982).

^[79] Rosemary Hunter et al, ‘Lawyers and Access to Justice’ in Richard L Abel et al (eds), (n 1) 312.

^[83] Sommerlad et al, ‘England and Wales A Legal Profession in the Vanguard of Professional Transformation’ (n 1) 91.

^[86] See also Sommerlad et al in Richard L Abel et al (eds) (n 1) 98. Specialisation has also broader impacts across the law. For example, see Brian Opeskin, ‘The Relentless Rise of Judicial Specialisation and its Implications for Judicial Systems’ 75(1) (2022) Current Legal Problems 137.

^[87] Productivity Commission, Access to Justice Arrangements (Report, Australian Government Productivity Commission, 3 December 2014) 20 <https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/access-justice/report>.

^[90] Centre for Innovative Justice RMIT, Affordable Justice – A Pragmatic Path to Greater Flexibility and Access in the Private Legal Services Market (Report, October 2013) 245 <http://mams.rmit.edu.au/qr7u4uejwols1.pdf> .

^[93] Law Council of Australia and Law Institute of Victoria, Report into the Rural, Regional and Remote Areas Lawyers Survey (Executive Summary, July 2009) 1 <https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/publicassets/68bc466f-d839-e711-93fb-005056be13b5/Report%20into%20the%20Rural,%20Regional%20and%20Remote%20Areas%20Lawyers%20Survey%20-%20Executive%20Summary.pdf>.

^[98] ‘Definition of Pro Bono’, Australian Pro Bono Centre (Web Page, 2024) <Australian Pro Bono Centre | Definition of Pro Bono>.

^[101] Law Council of Australia, The Justice Project Final Report Part 2 (Report, August 2018) 13 <https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/justice-project/final-report>.

^[104] 16^th Annual Performance Report of the National Pro Bono Target September 2023 6 <16th-Performance-Report-of-the-National-Pro-Bono-Target-2023-FINAL.pdf (probonocentre.org.au)>.

James Cook University Law Review