Legal regulators wield extraordinary power. They can determine who is allowed to practise law, impose disciplinary sanctions, suspend livelihoods and irreversibly damage professional reputations. Yet unlike courts, their processes are largely invisible to the public.
In Western Australia, confidence in legal regulation eroded to such an extent that Parliament stepped in. In August 2025, the WA Parliament established an independent inquiry into the Legal Practice Board following widespread concern from lawyers, courts and professional bodies about delays, governance, fairness and human impact.
Victoria should now be asking an uncomfortable but necessary question: could similar conditions exist here?
Victoria’s legal profession is one of the largest and most complex in Australia. Its regulatory framework plays a critical role in protecting consumers, ensuring ethical practice and maintaining trust in the justice system. But regulation only works when it is efficient, fair and transparent — and when those subject to it believe the system is legitimate.
Across professional forums and practitioner accounts, concerns have emerged about delays in complaints handling, lack of transparency in decision-making, inconsistent communication, and the personal toll of prolonged regulatory engagement. These are not isolated grievances. Their persistence suggests systemic stress rather than individual dissatisfaction. Importantly, calling for an independent inquiry does not assume wrongdoing or regulatory failure. It recognises that robust oversight is a hallmark of strong institutions, not weak ones.
The WA inquiry demonstrated that parliamentary scrutiny can strengthen — not undermine — independent regulation. It created a transparent forum for evidence, protected procedural fairness and provided a pathway for reform where necessary.
Victoria has an opportunity to act proactively rather than reactively. Independent inquiries are most effective when they occur before confidence collapses entirely — not after a crisis forces intervention.
If legal regulators are to retain the trust of both the profession and the public, they must themselves be subject to scrutiny. That is not an attack on independence. It is accountability in action.