Nature and purpose of the rules

These rules outline the scope, application, purpose and effect of the rules for solicitors in Queensland.

This section contains Rules 1-2

1.1 These Rules apply to all solicitors in the jurisdiction, including Australian-registered foreign lawyers acting in the manner of a solicitor.
1.2 The definitions that apply in these Rules are set out in the Glossary.

Overview

The Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2012 replaced the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Rule 2007 on 1 June 2012. Subsequent amendments to the Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2012 came into effect on 1 April 2022 in NSW, Victoria, and South Australia (with some minor variations). Western Australia adopted these amendments on 1 July 2022. The Uniform States (NSW, Victoria, and Western Australia) rely on the Law Council of Australia's commentary.1

On 27 September 2024, the Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2023 (‘ASCR’) came into effect in Queensland by notification under s 225(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (‘Legal Profession Act’). The ASCR included most changes that the above jurisdictions adopted but retained the original 2012 wording for rules 23.2, 29.7, 29.12.5 and the definitions of ‘Principal’ and ‘Serious Criminal Offence’ in the Glossary. There was also a slight modification to rule 11A.

This ASCR Commentary was produced by the Queensland Law Society (‘QLS’) and acknowledges the extensive contributions of the QLS Ethics and Practice Centre and the QLS Ethics Advisory Committee. Solicitors should note that this ASCR Commentary that appears with the ASCR does not constitute part of the rules and is provided only as guidance. References to case law and legislation are current as at May 2026.

Differing forms of legal practice as a solicitor

The ASCR apply to all solicitors and Australian-registered foreign lawyers acting in the manner of a solicitor including, but not limited to, those engaged in: 

  • private legal practice, 
  • legal practice as ‘in-house’ (or corporate) counsel, 
  • legal practice as government legal officers2 (who hold a practising certificate), and
  • legal practice by bodies such as legal aid organisations and community legal centres.3

Definitions and interpretation 

Words and expressions used in the ASCR and referred to in this Commentary have the same meaning as they have in the Legal Profession Act unless defined in the Glossary. In that case, the Glossary definition applies, reflecting the different nature, scope or subject matter of the ASCR compared to the Legal Profession Act.4

1. Law Council of Australia, Commentary to the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules (March 2024) ('Law Council of Australia 2024 Commentary').
2. Government legal officers who do not hold a practising certificate should be cognisant that the ASCR reflect many aspects of the common law which are still applicable to them.
3. See also Law Council of Australia 2024 Commentary (n 1) 5-6.
4. Forsyth v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2004) NSWLR 132, [28] (Spigelman CJ); Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW), ss 7(3), 423(2). 

2.1 The purpose of these Rules is to assist solicitors to act ethically and in accordance with the principles of professional conduct established by the common law and these Rules.
2.2 In considering whether a solicitor has engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, the Rules apply in addition to the common law.
2.3 A breach of these Rules is capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, and may give rise to disciplinary action by the relevant regulatory authority.

Solicitors to observe the highest standards

The ASCR are not the sole touchstone for determining a solicitor’s ethical obligations. In providing guidance to solicitors, this Commentary also refers to relevant common law and legislation. These references are illustrative and do not exhaustively detail all relevant common law and legislation.

Where there is a difference in the standards between the ASCR and common law or legislation (in any jurisdiction), the ASCR require a solicitor to comply with the higher standard.

There may be circumstances where it is unclear whether the higher standard is contained within the ASCR or the common law. It may be that the ASCR and the common law prescribe different approaches. In these instances, rule 2.2 does not indicate which approach should be followed.

Unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct

Rules 2.2 and 2.3 adopt the definitions of ‘unsatisfactory professional conduct’ and ‘professional misconduct’ provided by ss 418–419 of the Legal Profession Act. Section 418 defines ‘unsatisfactory professional conduct’ to include:

conduct of an Australian legal practitioner happening in connection with the practice of law that falls short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent Australian legal practitioner.5

Section 419 defines ‘professional misconduct’ as conduct that is more serious than ‘unsatisfactory professional conduct’ and includes:

  1. unsatisfactory professional conduct of an Australian legal practitioner, if the conduct involves a substantial or consistent failure to reach or keep a reasonable standard of competence and diligence; and
  2. conduct of an Australian legal practitioner, whether happening in connection with the practice of law or happening otherwise than in connection with the practice of law that would, if established, justify a finding that the practitioner is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice.6

The Legal Profession Act clarifies that a breach of a professional conduct rule is conduct capable of constituting ‘unsatisfactory professional conduct’ or ‘professional misconduct’ as defined by the Act.7 A breach of a professional conduct rule that is capable of constituting ‘unsatisfactory professional conduct’ or ‘professional misconduct’ may give rise to disciplinary proceedings.

Because professional rules are an articulation of the standards expected from its members, they are relevant to ‘determining whether disciplinary proceedings should be commenced against a lawyer and in the hearing of those proceedings’.8

Objective of disciplinary proceedings 

The objective of disciplinary proceedings is not punishment.

The Law Council of Australia 2024 Commentary noted9 that disciplinary proceedings seek to protect clients and the public interest in the proper administration of justice:

from a legal practitioner who displays a lack of competence or diligence in legal practice, or from a legal practitioner whose conduct calls into question the fitness and propriety of that person to continue to be an officer of the court entrusted to engage in legal practice.10

… [A] legal practitioner who commits a civil or criminal offence will incur the appropriate civil or criminal penalty for that offence and may also, depending on the circumstances, incur disciplinary consequences. This is why the legal profession laws applying in all states and territories include conviction for a serious offence, a tax offence, or an offence involving dishonesty as conduct capable of constituting ‘unsatisfactory professional conduct’ or ‘professional misconduct’.11

Inherent jurisdiction of the court 

The statutory ‘complaints handling’ scheme found in legal profession laws are not the only means by which a matter may be raised for disciplinary examination. In Eden King Lawyers Pty Ltd v Makari (No 2),12 the Court relied upon its inherent jurisdiction to direct the solicitor to show cause why the Court should not refer potential disclosure and misuse of client confidential information to the NSW Law Society.13

5. Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) s 418 (‘Legal Profession Act’). 
6. Ibid s 419(1). Note that these definitions are repeated in the ASCR Glossary, except that the ASCR Glossary refers to the conduct as ‘occurring’ rather than ‘happening’.
7. See, eg, Legal Profession Act (n 5) s 420(1)(a) and accompanying note.
8. GE Dal Pont, Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility (Thomson Reuters, 7th ed, 2021) [1.125], cited in Law Council of Australia 2024 Commentary (n 1) 11–12.
9. Law Council of Australia 2024 Commentary (n 1) 12.
10. Southern Law Society v Westbrook (1910) 10 CLR 609, [612].
11. See, eg, Legal Profession Act (n 5) s 420(c).
12. [2022] NSWSC 479. 
13. Law Council of Australia 2024 Commentary (n 1) 14.