Legal Profession > Running a Law Firm > Use of titles

Use of titles principal, partner, director

Under the Uniform Law a principal of a law practice has greater responsibilities and liabilities than an employed legal practitioner. It is important that the title accurately reflects the legal practitioner's position in the law practice.

Section 6 of the Uniform Law defines a principal of a law practice to be an Australian Legal Practitioner who:

• in the case of a sole practitioner — is the sole practitionerr
• in the case of a law firm — is a partner in the firm
• in the case of a community legal service — is a supervising legal practitioner of the service referred to in section 117
• in the case of an incorporated legal practice or an unincorporated legal practice  —
  • holds an Australian practising certificate authorising the holder to engage in legal practice as a principal of a law practice
  • is —
    • if the law practice is a company within the meaning of the Corporations Ac t— a validly appointed director of the company, or
    • if the law practice is a partnership — a partner in the partnership, or
    • if the law practice is neither — in a relationship with the law practice that is of a kind approved by the Council under section 40 or specified in the Uniform Rules for the purposes of this definition

Most importantly, misuse of the title "principal" by legal practitioners who are not principals under the Uniform Law may be misleading or simply untrue and may confuse and mislead the courts, consumers or other members of the legal profession. So, if you are not a principal of a law practice, please do not use that title.

The terms “partner” and “director” are not defined in the Uniform Law and the Board considers those terms should be given their natural and ordinary meaning. The term “partner” denotes a legal practitioner carrying on legal practice in common with one or more other legal practitioners. The term “director” denotes a person employed as an officer of an incorporated legal practice and performing the duties of management of the legal practice as a member of the board of directors.

The Board cautions practitioners to be mindful of their legal obligation not to mislead the court, the public, other practitioners and their clients about their position in a law practice and reserves the right to deal with matters where that obligation is shown to have been breached.

Use of the term 'Senior Legal Counsel'

 
As described by the Australian Bar Association, Senior Counsel are barristers of “seniority and eminence”, and “the designation of Senior Counsel provides a public identification of barristers whose standing and achievements justify an expectation, on the part of those who may need their services as well as on the part of the judiciary and the public, that they can provide outstanding services as advocates and advisors, to the good of the administration of justice”.
 
In addition, Rule 9 of the Legal Profession Uniform General Rules 2015, provides that a person is entitled to use the title ‘Senior Counsel’ or ‘SC’ “When the Australian lawyer currently holds the status of Senior Counsel as recognised by the High Court or a Supreme Court of any jurisdiction”.
 
An enquiry by the Legal Practice Board considered submissions about using the term ‘senior legal counsel’ in Western Australia by some practitioners who do not hold the status of Senior Counsel.
 
The Board is aware that the term ‘senior legal counsel’ has for many years been used by practitioners employed ‘in-house’ by government entities and private corporations. In view of their limited dealings with the public, the Board considers that there is likely to be less scope for the public to be misled by the term ‘senior legal counsel’ by such practitioners than by practitioners who are not employed ‘in-house’.
 
However, the Board is of the view that use of the word ‘senior’ in conjunction with the word ‘counsel’ may be misleading, whatever other descriptor may be employed, depending on the circumstances.
 
In particular, the Board considers that the term is likely to mislead if used by a practitioner:

• whether ‘in-house’ or not, in correspondence with, or in the course of participating in any other activities involving, a member of the public (particularly if the member of the public is self-represented), or
• who is not an ‘in-house’ practitioner (particularly if the work of the practitioner involves providing advice about litigious matters or appearing in Court).

It follows that:

• care should be taken by any ‘in-house’ practitioner in using the term ‘senior legal counsel’, particularly where members of the public are involved
• the term should not be used by a practitioner engaged or employed in private practice, or by a practitioner engaged in any other capacity where there is potential for a member of the public to be misled.

Finally, the Board cautions all practitioners to be mindful of their legal obligation not to mislead the court, members of the public, other practitioners and their clients regarding the skill, expertise or degree of seniority purportedly held by them, and reserves the right to deal with matters where that obligation is shown to have been breached.
 

Use of the title Special Counsel

 
After conducting an enquiry into the use of the term “special counsel”, the Legal Practice Board has decided to take no action prohibiting or otherwise restricting its use.
 
However, the Board cautions firms to be mindful of their legal obligation not to mislead the court, members of the public, other practitioners and their clients regarding the skill or expertise purportedly held by solicitors employed by the firm and reserves the right to deal with matters where that obligation is shown to have been breached.