Justice Tony Payne's PLT Working Group may be avoiding some very obvious avenues of inquiry - Doing so might mean ongoing problems with basic skills, even among NSW LPAB lawyers

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

The Chief Justice NSW Andrew Bell, who is also chairman of the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board, has  posted a notice on his  Supreme Court and NSW LPAB  websites, which states amongst other things: 

My colleague, Justice Tony Payne, who is the Presiding Member of the LPAB, has constituted a PLT Working Group consisting of members of the LPAB and senior practitioners from around the State to consider both short and long term proposals for reforms addressing the cost and quality issues relating to PLT. As a next step, the Working Group is conducting detailed focus group meetings with practitioners about the issues identified in the survey. Further consultations, including with current PLT students and recent PLT graduates are planned. The LPAB has last week written to PLT providers providing a copy of the Urbis report and seeking detailed information to inform the LPAB's review of the current state of PLT available in New South Wales. 

Note that there is no mention above of any review of the NSW LPAB's PLT provider accreditation processes, despite the fact that it is the NSW LPAB that has enabled the provision of the deficient  PLT, by its chosen providers.

 These deficiencies are not new, and the NSW LPAB cannot say that it was unaware of the deficiencies,  especially in the case of  The College Of Law Australia ( see story below).

Refusing to address the problems at the NSW LPAB with regards its  supervision of the PLT could perpetuate some ongoing problems with basic legal skills, like reading and comprehending case law, which is evident even amongst  NSW LPAB members and executives.  There also seems to be  a problem in differentiating fact from fiction, which was reported in The Australian in January 2019.    Judge Tony Payne and his Working Group ought to be more than aware that that deficiency is fatal , for even first year law students, let alone senior lawyers and judges. 

TO BE READ WITH 

NSW LPAB Executive Officer Louise Pritchard had personal knowledge of operational matters excluded from the NSW LPAB Annual Report 2018, which she attested was compliant with NSW Public Sector rules

by Ganesh Sahathevan

                     Pritchard's signature on page 22 of the NSW LPAB Annual Report, 2017-2018

Between January and June 2018 Louise Pritchard, then Executive Officer of the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board, was informed by this writer via a number of emails about problems at the College of Law.  Some of these issues were subsequently made public in Malaysia., after the College Of Law  closed its regional office located in Malaysia suddenly and without explanation. 

The complaints against the College were not disclosed in the NSW LPAB Annual Report 2017-2018, despite the NSW LPAB being required to provide information in its annual reports about complaints against institutions like the College Of Law which it oversees and accredits,  ,and despite Pritchard having personal knowledge of the complaints.  

Pritchard was responsible for attesting that the NSW LPAB Annual Reports complied with disclosure and other requirements that concerned the NSW LPAB's operations. Pritchard left the NSW LPAB sometime in 2019, for a position at the Office Of General Counsel, Sydney University.

END 

SEE ALSO

Resignation of LPAB Executive Officer Louise Pritchard is an audit red flag that requires the Chairman LPAB, the Chief Justice NSW Tom Bathurst, to provide an explanation: Misallocation of $40-50 Million p.a. in FEE HELP adds to overdue need for better governance 

Posted 27th March 2023 by ganesh sahathevan