The Legal Practitioners Rules and an application by Espie for admission as a legal practitioner of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory - [2003] NTSC 20

The Legal Practitioners Rules and an application by Espie for admission as a legal practitioner of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory
[2003] NTSC 20
IN THE MATTER OF:
THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS RULES
AND:
IN THE MATTER OF:
AN APPLICATION BY NICHOLAS RICHARD ESPIE FOR ADMISSION AS A LEGAL PRACTITIONER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:LP11 of 2003
DELIVERED:  18 March 2003
HEARING DATES:  4 March 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ
CATCHWORDS:
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS

Admission – application for dispensation relating to admission – time served under articles less than prescribed in the Act – order sought pursuant to r 11(3) and r 25(2) Legal Practitioners Rules (NT) – court’s power to abridge time – “must show that grounds exist for relaxing requirements” – must show that standards have been achieved at least equivalent to those prescribed.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:T Elliott
Respondent:  M Grove
Solicitors:
Applicant:DPP
Respondent:  Law Society
Judgment category classification:      B
Judgment ID Number:  mar0308
Number of pages:  7

mar0308
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Legal Practitioners Rules and an application by Espie for admission as a legal practitioner of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory
[2003] NTSC 20
No. LP11 of 2003

IN THE MATTER OF:
THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS RULES
AND:
IN THE MATTER OF:
AN APPLICATION BY NICHOLAS RICHARD ESPIE FOR ADMISSION AS A LEGAL PRACTITIONER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 18 March 2003)

The applicant seeks to be admitted as a legal practitioner of this Court. He recognises that he has not completed the required period of service under articles of clerkship and seeks an order pursuant to r 11(3) and r 25(2) of the Legal Practitioners Rules to relieve him of that requirement by ordering that the period for which he is required to render service in accordance with Articles of Clerkship be less than 12 months.

The reasons giving rise to the application are deposed to by the applicant in affidavits. The applicant anticipated completing the courses of study and examinations in respect of the areas of law prescribed by r 10(b) in November 2001. In anticipation of that he successfully applied for engagement as an article clerk in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions at Alice Springs to commence in January 2002. Illness and a death in the applicant’s family intervened and he did not sit for the examinations until February 2002.
Nevertheless he commenced work with the Director’s office on 4 January 2002 performing duties as if an article clerk.
Articles of Clerkship require the approval of the Legal Practitioners Admission Board which is not to be given, unless the Board is satisfied that the applicant has, or is entitled to, the academic qualifications. Evidence of that by way of a Memorandum of Grades was issued by the university on 16 April 2002. The Deed of Articles of Clerkship was entered into on 23April 2002 and submitted to the Board.
There was delay in having the matter dealt with by the Board, but the approval was given on 6 August 2002 to operate from 8 May 2002 (r 22(5)). Had the application been dealt with earlier than 6 August 2002, the earliest date from which the approval could take effect would have been the date upon which the Deed was executed, 23 April 2002.
The applicant seeks to have the period for which he is required to render service in accordance with the articles reduced from 12 months so as to give him the benefit of the period of time he served, as if an articled clerk, commencing on 14 January 2002.
There is evidence by way of a letter from the university addressed to the applicant dated 31 October 2002 that as of 1 March 2002 he had met the requirements to receive the award of a Bachelor of Laws degree. However that letter, even if available in March 2002, could not have satisfied the Board that he was entitled to or had acquired the academic qualifications, since it did not specify the subjects which the applicant had successfully undertaken.
I am satisfied on the evidence of the legal practitioner, under whose tutelage the applicant was engaged, that he has performed the duties of an articled clerk as from 14 January 2002. He has been absent from service under articles for a period of 24 days with the consent of the legal practitioner as provided for in the Deed. The Board allows an articled clerk 20 working days recreation leave and 5 working days sick leave as part of the required 12 months. The applicant has not exceeded that allowance.
The applicant does not rely upon the factors which led to a delay in his completion of the examinations to achieve the required academic qualifications. He does rely, however, upon his period of service as if an articled clerk from the time he commenced his engagement in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions until the date upon which he entered into the articles.
The scheme of the Rules is that the period spent in obtaining academic qualifications and the period spent in service under articles do not overlap. Thus, it is put by counsel for the Law Society Northern Territory, that a person seeking to become admitted as a legal practitioner will not be disturbed from pursuing academic qualifications by work commitments and service under articles will not be adversely affected by the need to study or attend to sit for examinations. Satisfactory service under articles is best assured if the clerk comes to the task after obtaining the required academic standard. I consider there is merit in those arguments.
I note that the applicant had leave without pay for a period of ten days from 11 to 22 February 2002 to prepare for the deferred examinations. He was not then employed pursuant to articles, but the example serves to demonstrate the submission made on behalf of the Law Society.
I have considered the various authorities to which reference was made in the course of submissions. They include re Mallett (1989) 95 FLR 63; re Thomson (1992) NTSC 69; re Nelson (1994) 116 FLR 104; re Kavanagh (1995) 125 FLR 138; re Application for Admission of a Legal Practitioner (1999) 149 FLR 227 and re Fry, a decision of Justice Bailey of this Court, unreported, delivered on 5 November 2001 in proceedings LP 35 of 2001.
Each decision necessarily turned upon the prevailing legislation and the facts in the case. As might be expected there is no precedent for a case such as this. Amongst the things that may be gleaned from those authorities, however, are the following:
·     An applicant for dispensation from the operation of Rules relating to admission as a legal practitioner whether as to academic qualifications or practical training must show that grounds exist for relaxing the requirements. The purpose of the Rules must be fulfilled.
·     Emphasis is placed upon the prescribed standards being designed to protect the public interest so far as compliance with the Rules can do so. If the prescribed standards are not met, then an applicant must clearly show that he or she has achieved standards which are at least equivalent to those prescribed.
·     The court must be satisfied that the applicant for admission is fit to be appointed as an officer of the court with the attendant rights, privileges and responsibilities.
·     The public interest embraces concerns that the court only admit to practice as legal practitioners those who it is satisfied have achieved the standards upon which those who seek legal advice and assistance can rely. It is important that there be no lowering of the general standards of the profession. In that regard I note that the provisions of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (NT) are directed to establishing a national legal profession into which Territory legal practitioners may enter.
·     Dispensing with strict compliance with the Rules as to practical training appear to have been successful in cases where the applicant has demonstrated a significant breadth and depth of appropriate experience over an extended period of time in a solicitors office.
Had the applicant proof to satisfy the Board that he was entitled to, or had the academic qualifications prior to receipt of the Memorandum of Grades dated 16 April, it might be safely inferred that the Deed of Articles of Clerkship would have been entered into soon after that earlier time and the approval of the Board obtained in the ordinary course.
I am unaware of the procedures of the university which causes the lapse of time of some weeks between the time a person has successfully completed the requirements to obtain a degree and the production of evidence as to that fact, including, for these purposes, reference to the prescribed academic subjects. There is nothing before me to suggest that the lapse of time in the applicant’s case was anything out of the ordinary and thus all graduates may be taken to be subject to the same minor disadvantage. I am not to be taken to be critical of the university on that score, I simply do not know. However, there is nothing to show that the applicant endeavoured to obtain evidence any earlier than when it was made available. Diligence on his part then may have obviated the need for the application now.
I accept that from the time he commenced employment in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in January the applicant was treated as if he were an articled clerk, and that his experience thereafter served by way of practical training. But I think it is unlikely that there have not been many other graduates in law who have undertaken the same or similar employment pending receipt of the evidence required of their academic qualifications before entering into articles of clerkship and seeking the approval of the Board.
For these reasons, I do not consider that the application warrants the exercise of the discretion which the applicant seeks. However, I consider that a case has been made out to justify relieving the applicant of the obligation to serve a period of 12 months from the date of approval of articles by the Board by ordering that satisfactory service as from 23 April 2002 is sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Rules. Order accordingly.
I note that the application for admission as a legal practitioner is also before me, but I decline to deal with it since there is not any certificate of the Legal Practitioners Admission Board on the file. In any event I consider that that application should be dealt with in the ordinary course, including the possibility of bringing it before a Judge of the Court in Alice Springs, where the applicant works and resides.

-------------------------------------------------