ACC via the ACC Australian Advocacy Committee (AAAC) and with international support from the ACC global advocacy team, focuses its advocacy activities on issues that directly affect the practice of law by our members. In-house counsel across Australia face an evolving legal landscape, giving rise to issues affecting the professional role and status of in-house counsel, attorney-client or legal professional privilege (LPP), and practice and licensing matters. As part of our ongoing efforts to support in-house counsel in Australia and around the world, ACC has been involved in advocacy efforts to address some of these issues.
Australia Attorney-General and Treasury Departments, Review of the Use of Legal Professional Privilege in Commonwealth Investigations Discussion Paper
Following the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) tax scandal, the Australian government launched a joint Treasury and Attorney-General’s Department nationwide review of LPP in Commonwealth investigations. The government consulted widely and at the request of the government, met with ACC on several occasions to seek its expertise. In December 2024, the government released a Discussion Paper outlining LPP’s role in Australia’s legal system, the impact of electronic documents on managing privilege in investigations and litigation, and concerns over the misuse of privilege claims to delay investigations.
The discussion paper asked stakeholders to answer several questions on potential reforms. As a global legal association focused on LPP issues on behalf of its members in Australia and around the world, ACC filed comments in response to that request on 28 February 2025. The comments provide an overview of how other jurisdictions have approached these concerns and highlight how education, training and developing strong ethical frameworks help ensure that in-house counsel confine their assertion of LPP to legitimately privileged information. Finally, ACC’s comments encourage collaboration among the government and all stakeholders to ensure that any new policies avoid duplication or conflict with existing regulations and are consistently implemented.
Victorian Legal Services Board+Commissioner In-house Counsel Policy Review
The Victorian Legal Services Board+Commissioner (VLSB+C), the state regulator for in-house counsel in Victoria, is undertaking a policy review of in-house counsel’s work in both the private and public sectors.
Recent inquiries into public and private sector misconduct raised questions about the role that some in-house lawyers played in the alleged wrongdoing under investigation in cases like Robodebt and Casino Royal Commissions. Similar concerns have also been raised in the United Kingdom’s ongoing Post Office Horizon IT inquiry.
ACC Australia’s Victorian Division was asked to participate in an oral and written consultation process.
Specifically, the regulator sought information on:
- the challenges in-house counsel experience in their positions;
- ways the VLSB+C can support in-house counsel; and,
- identifying potential regulatory changes.
The examples cited by the VLSB+C of in-house counsel who may have acted unethically or illegally in organizations that have been accused of wrongdoing signals that the VLSB+C is exploring whether to make significant regulatory changes aimed specifically at the in-house profession. Any such regulatory changes in Victoria may expand to other Australian states, especially given the national and, indeed, international scope of the examples they cite. ACC Australia members in the state of Victoria met with VLSB+C officials and submitted a written statement on 14 March, 2025.
Addressing the “Related Entity” Issue
ACC Australia has a long history of engaging on this issue. In fact, in November 2019, ACC filed comments with the Legal Services Council (LSC) seeking an amendment to the Legal Profession Uniform Law. ACC suspects that since the introduction of the Uniform Law, some in-house counsel may inadvertently breach its provisions by providing legal services to entities within a corporate group that don’t meet the strict definition of “related entity” under the Corporations Act. This creates limitations on the scope of legal services in-house counsel can provide, especially for entities that are controlled by their employer but don’t qualify as subsidiaries or holding companies.
ACC believes that a shift away from heavy reliance on "related entity" to a broader concept of control will improve efficiency for corporate legal practitioners and legitimize a broader scope of legal services in-house counsel can lawfully provide under the Uniform Law. An amendment of the type ACC proposes would also mean that in-house counsel would no longer be forced to take out a Principal Practising Certificate with the concomitant requirement to also take out professional indemnity insurance
Related Entity Feedback Sought
The ACC Australian Advocacy Committee (AAAC) is actively seeking feedback from members who have been impacted by this issue and have either chosen to or were required to obtain an expensive Principal Practising Certificate and Professional Indemnity cover due to the uncertainty of the current legislation. Members are encouraged to reach out to ACC directly with their feedback at advocacy@acc.com. ACC wishes to hear from as many members as possible who have been affected by this lack of clarity in the legislation.
Recognizing ACC’s expertise on these three policy issues, the Australian government, VLSB+C, and the Law Council of Australia sought out ACC’s insights, giving ACC a seat at the table. By addressing these key challenges, ACC upholds its commitment to advocate on matters of interest to the in-house profession that help shape Australia’s corporate legal environment and promote the public's understanding of the law within the business and legal communities. Through active participation in consultations, providing feedback to regulatory bodies, and advocating for reforms, ACC ensures that the voice of in-house counsel remains heard and considered in shaping the future of legal practice in Australia.