A. INTRODUCTION
3.1 We begin this chapter by summarising briefly the present position in New South Wales concerning specialisation, and the regulation of specialisation in the legal profession. We then mention some relevant developments in other places, and in professions other than law, in relation to regulation of specialisation.
B. THE PRESENT POSITION IN NEW SOUTH WALES
3.2 The present position in New South Wales is described in some detail in our Discussion Paper.1 We do not repeat all of that description here, but the following outline concentrates on the following aspects:
- patterns of specialisation;
- designation of specialists; and
- advertising about fields of practice.
I. Patterns of Specialisation
Current Concentration
3.3 A simple way of defining and measuring specialisation is by reference to the proportion of a practitioner s time which he or she current]\, spends working in a particular field. Some information is available as to the patterns of concentration of this kind amongst the legal profession in New South Wales. For example, a survey of solicitors in 1977 found that almost three-fifths of respondents spent more than 40% of their time working in one of the 14 fields listed in the survey questionnaire. 2 By far the most Popular field was “real property sales, mortgages and leases”, in which almost two-fifths of respondents spent more than 40% of their time. No other field had more than 6% of respondents concentrating in it to such an extent The next most popular fields were “probate, wills and administration of estates”, "motor accident law”, “family law”, “taxation law and estate planning” and “other commercial and company law”.
3.4 The same survey 3 demonstrated the extent to which barristers concentrate in the field of advocacy, for example, about one-quarter of respondent barristers reported having spent more than 20 hours appearing in court during the week prior to the survey. In terms of subject areas of law, as contrasted with advocacy, slightly less than half of the barristers responding to the survey reported that they spent more than 40% of their time in any one area. Amongst the more popular areas were equity, criminal law, personal injury claims, commercial law, family law and workers’ compensation.
3.5 Patterns of current concentration vary somewhat between central Sydney and other parts of the State. 4 Many country and suburban solicitors, but a small proportion of central Sydney solicitors, spend the overwhelming majority of their time in real property and probate work. On the other hand, country and suburban solicitors are perhaps more likely than their city counterparts to be willing to handle a wide range of work, rather than confining themselves to a narrow field of practice. The latter type of concentrated practice is most commonly found in large city firms, especially in relation to sub- fields of commercial law.
Comparative Concentration within the Profession
3.6 The preceding comments relate to specialisation measured simply as a proportion of a particular practitioners total work. Another measure, which is a more accurate reflection of common usage by lawyers of the term specialisation is to compare that proportion with the proportion spent in the same field by other practitioners. 5 There are some fields, such as real property or probate work, in which a solicitor may spend a considerable amount of time yet not be regarded within the profession as being a specialist because many other practitioners concentrate in the field to a similar or greater degree. In other fields, such as admiralty or constitutional law, a solicitor or a barrister may spend little of his or her time in the field yet be regarded as a specialist in it because very few other practitioners do any work at all in the field. As we have said, levels of concentration in particular fields can vary substantially between central Sydney, the suburbs of Sydney, and other parts of the State. Accordingly, the level of concentration necessary to be commonly regarded as a specialist say, workers’ compensation is likely to be much lower in many country areas than in Sydney.
Sustained Concentration
3.7 A third measure of specialisation is the extent to which a practitioner has concentrated in a particular field over a substantial period. In many fields, practitioners are unlikely to be regarded by the profession as being specialists unless, no matter how high their level of current concentration they have worked in the field for some years. Conversely, some practitioners may be regarded as specialists because they have worked in a field over many years, albeit not at a high level of concentration. But sustained concentration is not always necessary in order to be regarded as a specialist, particularly in new or relatively unusual fields such as communications law or anti-discrimination law. We know of no statistical data concerning the length of experience which New South Wales lawyers have in particular fields. But it is significant to note in this context that about one-third of solicitors, and a similar proportion of barristers, have been members of the legal profession for less than five years. 6
Expertise
3.8 As we mentioned earlier, the term specialisation is often used to denote not merely concentration but also expertise. 7 For example, many lawyers in New South Wales do not describe another practitioner as a specialist in a particular field unless they consider that he or she is specially expert in it. Concentration in a particular field is likely to develop one’s expertise in it. Some practitioners, however, may concentrate heavily, and for many years, on a particular field without developing special expertise. For example, as commonly occurs in relation to conveyancing, they may handle a great volume of repetitive and relatively simple work, referring more difficult problems in the field to other practitioners. For these and other reasons, concentration is not a highly reliable indicator of expertise. 8
3.9 It is difficult to make specific statements about patterns of expertise amongst lawyers in New South Wales. It is perhaps reasonable to suggest however, that in many fields, especially of commercial law, the highest levels of expertise are more likely to be found amongst barristers, or in medium-sized and large firms of solicitors in central Sydney, than elsewhere in the profession. But some of the leading experts in fields such as criminal law, family law and conveyancing, may be solicitors in small practices, whether situated in central Sydney or otherwise. Some of the most highly skilled Queen’s Counsel and junior barristers do not specialise in any particular subject area of law, but rather in dealing with difficult questions in a range of different fields.
II. Designation of Specialists
Official Designation
3.10 There is no official designation of specialists within the legal profession in New South Wales. Appointment as Queen’s Counsel is a recognition of eminence as a barrister. 9 But it does not indicate the field or fields of practice in which a particular appointee has achieved this eminence. Some Queen’s Counsel have narrow areas of concentration and expertise, while others are highly regarded for their ability to handle work in a wide range of fields.
3.11 The designations “barrister” and “solicitor” may give some clues as to a practitioners likely fields of practice. 10 For example, barristers are more likely than solicitors to undertake advocacy but unlike many solicitors, they do not carry out conveyancing transactions or the administration of estates. But the designations are not intended to indicate whether particular practitioners are specialists, nor their particular fields of practice, and they are not reliable indicators for those purposes. Many barristers concentrate heavily in particular fields but many do not. Many barristers are highly expert in particular fields but many are not. The same comments may be made about solicitors.
Designation by Special Interest Associations
3.12 Many practitioners in New South Wales belong to associations of people interested in a particular area of law, such as the Commercial Law Association and the Family Law Practitioners Association. 11 Neither the Law Society nor the Bar Association has organised associations of this kind under its own auspices, but since 1979 the Law Council of Australia, which is the national federation of law societies and bar associations, has established special interest groups (“Sections”) in some fields. 12
3.13 At present these associations and sections are open to any lawyer who is willing to pay a small subscription fee. Most of them also accept non-lawyers. With one exception (see below), they do not restrict or categorise membership on the grounds of training, concentration, experience or expertise in the field in question. Accordingly, the fact that a practitioner belongs to one of these associations is no more than an indication of interest in a particular field. It is not a designation by the association of the practitioner as being, for instance, specially experienced or skilled in the field.
3.14 The exception is the Family Law Practitioners Association, which introduced a new membership structure in 1979. 13 It now distinguishes between associate membership, which is open to all interested persons, and full membership, which is confined to those who
(i) have passed an examination in family law prior to admission, or pass some other examination recognised by the Association; and
(ii) satisfy the Qualifications Committee of the Association that they have a sound knowledge of family law and “current practical experience” in the field. 14
We understand that the Qualifications Committee interviews all applicants for full membership and that a substantial proportion of applications have been unsuccessful. In addition, the Constitution of the Association provides for the appointment of Fellows. 15 These must be people who in the opinion of a general meeting of the Association have made “a significant contribution to the development or understanding of family law”, have “achieved eminence in the practice of family Law”, or whose other contributions to family law are “deserving of such recognition”. 16 We understand that, to date, the only persons to be elected as Fellows have been judges.
Designation by Academic Institutions
3.15 Undergraduate law courses now include some optional subjects in particular fields of law. In addition, some postgraduate degrees and diplomas are available for work in particular fields. In the present context, however, these qualifications are of limited significance. Firstly, they are academic in nature; they do not require or connote practical experience and expertise. Secondly, the required study in any particular field is limited, especially in undergraduate courses. Thirdly, titles such as LLB or LLM do not indicate the fields of law studied and therefore are of no use, in themselves, as designations in relation to particular fields.
3.16 The College of Law and various other bodies provide continuing legal education programmes in some fields but they rarely amount to more than a seminar or a few lectures and they do not lead to a diploma, certificate or other designation
III. Advertising about Fields of Practice
3.17 Generally speaking, neither barristers nor solicitors in New South Wales are permitted to advertise, or otherwise communicate publicly, any information or assertions about their fields of practice. This applies, for example, to communications about specialisation, concentration expertise, or willingness to accept work, in particular fields. It applies also to publicising one’s membership of a special interest association. 17 The prohibition applies not only to advertisements in the mass media but also, for example, to entries in publications circulating mainly within the profession. The principal sources of the prohibition are, in the case of barristers, the rules of the New South Wales Bar Association and in the case of solicitors, statutory regulations made by the Law Society of New South Wales with the approval of the Governor. 18 These rules and regulations are summarised in greater detail in Parts III and IV, where we consider the general question of advertising, whether in relation to fields of practice or otherwise.
3.18 There is, however, a significant exception to the general prohibition in relation to solicitors. The relevant regulations give the Law Society power to approve types of advertisement which are not specifically authorised by the regulations. 19 It is presumably under this power that the Society has authorised inclusion of some information about fields of practice in its new Legal Services Directory. 20 This directory, first published in 1981, contains details of all solicitors’ practices wishing to be included in it, and it is made available to the public and the profession The information in it relates to practices rather than to individual practitioners. The point of importance in the present context is that the directory indicates in which of fourteen particular fields each practice describes itself as “willing to provide assistance”. It also enables each practice to indicate whether it claims to have “knowledge” of the laws of any other country.
3.19 A further qualification to the general prohibition is that it does not prevent lawyers from writing books or articles in legal periodicals and thereby conveying indirectly something of their experience and expertise in particular fields. In some circumstances, a similar effect can be achieved by accepting unsolicited invitations to address meetings. 21
IV. A Proposed Development
3.20 In 1979 the Law Society announced that it intended to relax the present regulations against advertising by solicitors, so as to allow certain types of information to be advertised in newspapers and other printed publications. At the time of writing, these proposed changes are in an advanced stage of preparation. We describe them in detail in Part III when considering the general question of advertising by solicitors. 22
3.21 The proposed new regulations would not allow solicitors to advertise in relation to fields of practice, otherwise than is presently permitted in the Legal Services Directory. But the Society also announced in 1979 that is had
“decided to implement a scheme of specialisation under which a solicitor who wishes to be recognised as a specialist will be required to meet defined standards....” 23
Solicitors recognised as specialists under this scheme would be permitted to advertise themselves as such in newspapers and other printed publications. The Society did not publish detailed proposals for such a scheme until after the publication of our Discussion Paper, Advertising and Specialisation, in 1981. It then embodied the proposals in its Submission responding to our Paper. We outline the proposals in chapter 4 when summarising responses to the Paper. 24
C. DEVELOPMENTS IN OTHER PLACES AND OTHER PROFESSIONS
I. Introduction
3.22 In our Discussion Paper we described a number of recent developments in relation to specialisation in legal professions outside New South Wales, and in professions other than law. 25 The developments related to what we call “fields of practice schemes”; 26 that is, schemes concerning advertising by lawyers about their fields of practice. They comprised schemes which either have been introduced or have been proposed by an authoritative Source. We concentrated on developments which have not occurred as vet in New South Wales.
3.23 We do not repeat all of that description in this Report. But we mention several developments in order to illustrate a range of possible measures which could be adopted in relation to lawyers in New South Wales. As explained earlier, 27 we describe fields of practice schemes along a spectrum from “low lever, to “high level” according to the level of qualifications, if any, which they require of practitioners wishing to advertise about fields of practice.
II. Developments in Legal Professions outside New South Wales
Low Level: United Kingdom
3.24 Prior to 1976 the restrictions on advertising by lawyers in the United Kingdom were similar to those which presently apply in New South Wales. In 1976, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the United Kingdom recommended in relation to a number of professions, including solicitors but not barristers, that practitioners should be permitted to advertise any information or assertion, provided that it is not false or misleading, does not claim superiority over other practitioners, and is not Such as to be likely to bring the profession into disrepute. 28 Advertising about fields of practice fell within the ambit of the Commission’s recommendations. The recommendations have not been implemented, 29 although they have stimulated some relaxations of the restrictions, Including those mentioned in the following paragraphs.
3.25 In England, solicitors are now allowed to advertise in office signs of a specified size and format that they “can help with” problems arising in one or more of fourteen specified fields. 30 Regional law societies can publish directories or newspaper advertisements listing the names of local solicitors and, amongst other things, the fields in which they undertake or do not undertake work. The national Law Society publishes regional Legal Aid lists of solicitors’ practices which claim to be willing to accept work in particular fields and to be willing to accept legal aid work. In the Greater Manchester area, however, the List is of individual practitioners, rather than practices, and indicates in which of a number of specified fields they claim to “have experience”. In the same area there is also a higher level scheme involving a director, of solicitors’ practices which “have shown to the satisfaction of the Greater Manchester Legal Services Committee that they have some experience in advising and providing representation” before specified tribunals. Since 1977 the annual directory of English barristers, known as the Bar List, has indicated in which of 39 fields a barrister is willing to accept work in the ordinary of his practice”.
3.26 In Scotland. practices which are In areas that the Law Society considers to have “an inadequate supply of legal services”, or to be ones where “the availability of that supply is insufficiently, known”, may advertise in the press on a specified number of occasions the nature of the legal services offered” by them. 31 The Society publishes a Legal Aid List similar to that in Greater Minchester. It also his a Directory of Specialist Services, comprising the names of individual solicitors who have responded to a general inquiries from the Society as to whether they have a “reasonable level of experience” in any one of 149 listed fields. This Directory is not directly available to the public. It is used by the Society’s officers when responding to inquiries from the public or the profession about the names of solicitors who claim to be well-versed in a particular field.
Low-Medium Level: Ontario
3.27 In Ontario, practitioners may not advertise about their fields of practice save under a scheme which permits them, subject to certain conditions, to advertise that they are in “General Practice” or that they have up to three “preferred areas of practice”. Each area must be drawn from a list of areas approved bv the Law Society. Prior to 1982, a practitioner wishing to advertise in this way was required to satisfy modest continuing legal education requirements, but this has been replaced by a requirement that every two years the practitioner must certify to the Law Society that during the preceding two years 20% of his or her practice has been spent in the particular area. 32
3.28 Some Canadian provinces now allow practitioners to advertise “preferred areas of practice” without having to obtain any specified qualifications, 33 and in 1980 the Professional Organisations Committee in Ontario recommended the adoption of a similar approach. 34 By contrast higher level schemes, intended to enable highly-specialised practitioners to advertise themselves as specialists, have been considered in Ontario and several other provinces, 35 but they do not appear likely to be adopted in the foreseeable future.
Medium-High Level: American Bar Association
3.29 As a guide for States wishing to allow advertising about specialisation the American Bar Association adopted in 1979 a Model Plan of Specialisation. 36 It amounts to a suggested framework, leaving room for individual variations between States. The scheme would be run by a Board, and practitioners would be permitted to advertise themselves as “Board Recognised Specialists” in a particular field, provided that every five years they satisfy the Board that they have
(i) had “substantial involvement’ in the field for the previous three years;
(ii) participated satisfactorily in such continuing legal education as is prescribed by the Board (not to be less than 10 hours for each of the previous three years); and
(iii) provided five independent referees from whom the Board may obtain references concerning the practitioner’s competence and qualifications to be recognised as a specialist.
Proposals based on this Model Plan have been adopted in a few States but have been rejected, or held in abeyance, in a number of other States. In several States a lower level scheme has been introduced, 37 while in several other States a higher level scheme has been adopted. 38
High Level: California
3.30 Since 1973, a specialist certification scheme for lawyers has been operated by a statutory Board of Legal Specialisation in California. 39 It covers criminal law, workers’ compensation, taxation law, and family law. Practitioners can obtain certification in a field if they have
(i) acquired five years’ experience in legal practice;
(ii) acquired a specified degree of past experience in the field (for example, in workers’ compensation an applicant must have made at least 300 appearances in workers’ compensation proceedings during the past five years and have devoted at least one quarter of his or her practice to that field in each of three out of the past five years);
(iii) completed specified continuing legal education; and
(iv) in some fields, provided references from judges or other lawyers involved in the field.
Certified practitioners can advertise themselves as” Board certified specialists”, and can use any other form of words provided it is not false or misleading. The scheme has aroused considerable opposition during its 9 year history, and its future continues to be uncertain. 40 Broadly similar schemes have been adopted in a few States, but proposals for high level schemes have been rejected or deferred in a number of other States. 41
Two-Tier Systems
3.31 Schemes of differing levels are not necessarily incompatible. 42 In California, for example, there is a two-tier system. 43 Practitioners who wish to advertise themselves as certified specialists must meet the requirements which we described above. But any practitioner is free to advertise other claims about fields of practice, provided that they are not false or misleading. In other words, California has a combination of high level and low level schemes.
III. Developments in Professions other than Law
Medicine
3.32 For many years in Australia there have been a number of colleges and associations of medical practitioners who are interested in particular fields of practice. 44 Many of them require applicants for membership or fellowship to complete a rigorous course of examinations and substantial practical training in the particular field. The only permitted form of advertising by medical practitioners about their fields of practice is that membership or fellowship of most of these specialist bodies can be indicated on, for example, stationery and brass plates.
3.33 However, the significance of membership or fellowship of these specialist bodies goes beyond the area of advertising. First, it has become increasingly rare for public hospitals to be willing to appoint medical practitioners to senior positions in a particular field unless they are members or fellows of the relevant college or association Secondly, since 1970, higher Commonwealth medical benefits have been payable if the particular service was rendered by a recognised specialist on referral from another practitioner. 45 The usual requirement for recognition as a specialist under this scheme is membership or fellowship of a specified college or association in the particular field.
Accountancy
3.34 Since 1979, Australian accountants have been permitted to advertise one of eight specified descriptions about their fields of practice. 46 Examples include “registered company liquidator” and “management consultant”. The advertisements “must in no way imply superior expertise or evaluate the services available”. 47 They can appear in newspapers or other printed publications.
Engineering
3.35 Prior to 1981, Australian engineers were not permitted to advertise about their fields of practice, save to a limited extent in brochures and in advertisements in technical journals. 48 In 1981 the rules were successfully challenged before the Trade Practices Tribunal under the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act 1974. 49 The new rules allow advertising, including advertising about fields of practice, provided that it is “dignified, becoming to a professional engineer and characteristically free of any factor or circumstance that could bring disrepute to the profession Information given must be truthful factual dignified and free from ostentatious, complimentary or laudatory expressions or implications”. 50
FOOTNOTES
1. See Advertising and Specialisation, chapter 2.
2. The statistics referred to in this paragraph and in paragraph 3.4 were calculated by the Commission’s research staff from data obtained in a survey conducted by Roman Tomasic and Cedric Bullard for the Law Foundation of New South Wales. Some relevant findings of that survey have been published in R Tomasic and C Bullard, Lawyers and their Work in New South Wales (Law Foundation of NSW, Sydney, 1978), pp.36-44, 159-166, 168, 215-228. For a valuable survey of the position in Victoria, see M. Hetherton, Victoria’s Lawyers (Victoria Law Foundation, Melbourne, 1978).
3. See note 3.31, and Tomasic and Bullard, pp.168, 207.
4. For data on regional variations see Tomasic and Bullard (note 3.31 above).
5. For statistical comparisons of this kind, see, eg, H Arthurs, J Willms and L Taman, “The Toronto Legal Profession: An Exploratory Survey”, University of Toronto Law Journal (1971), vol.21, p.498.
6. Calculated from the 1982 Law Almanac.
7. See para. 2.1.
8. For a fuller discussion of this point see our Discussion Paper, Advertising and Specialisation, pp. 12-13.
9. For a discussion of the rank of Queen’s Counsel see our Discussion Paper, The Structure of the Profession, chapter 8, and our First Report on the Legal Profession, chapter 9.
10. For a fuller discussion of the matters considered in this paragraph see our Discussion Papers, Advertising and Specialisation, pp. 14-16, and the Structure of the Profession pp.68, 121-124, 133-146.
11. For a fuller list of these associations, see our Discussion Paper Advertising and Specialisation, p.16.
12. See Australian Law News, March 1980, p.29 and June 1980, p.32.
13. For a fuller treatment of the matters referred to in this paragraph see our Discussion Paper, Advertising and Specialisation, pp. 17-18.
14. Constitution of the Family Law Practitioners Association. rule IV(c).
15. Rule IV(d).
16. Rule IV(d).
17. Especially rules 72 and 73. For a fuller description of these rules see chapter 15 of this Report.
18. Solicitors (General Regulations, reg.29. For a fuller description of this regulation, and relevant rulings of the Law Society, see chapter 9 of this Report.
19. Solicitors’ (General) Regulations, reg. 29(2).
20. For further discussion of the Directory, see paras.9.7 and 13.12-13.14 of this Report.
21. For further consideration of the matters referred to in this paragraph, see chapter 14 of this Report.
22. See paras. 9.6-9.19.
23. Law Society of New South Wales, Special Bulletin (No. 4 of 1979), p.8.
24. See para. 4.14.
25. See chapter 3.
26. See paras.2.5-2.6 of this Report.
27. See para. 2.6.
28. See Solicitors’ Services: A Report on the Supply of Services of Solicitors in England and Wales in Relation to Restrictions on Advertsing (HMSO, London. 1976), p.40, Solicitors’ Services: A Report on the Supply of Services of Solicitors in Scotland in Relation to Restrictions on Advertising (HMSO, London, 1976); Barristers’ Services: A Report on the Supply of Barristers’ Services in Relation to Restrictions on Advertising (HMSO, London, 1976).
29. The Law Societies’ failure to implement the recommendations has been criticised by the Government (Guardian Gazette, 1978, vol.75, p.521) and the Director-General of Fair Trading (Law Society Gazette, 1982, p.95).
30. For a summary of the present restrictions in England, see New Law Journal (1979), vol.129, p.1023. See also our Discussion Paper, Advertising and Specialisation pp.24-27 and 106-109-, Royal Commission on Legal Services, Final Report (HMSO, London, 1979, Cmnd.7648), pp.368-373: Royal Commission on Legal Services in Scotland, Report, (HMSO, Edinburgh 1980, Cmnd.7846), pp.61-65.
31. On the position in Scotland, see generally, Royal Commission on Legal Services in Scotland (note 30 above): K Macgregor, “Legal Services and the Public”, International Bar Journal (1978), p.56: K Pritchard, “Rules of Professional Advertising in Scotland”, International Legal Practitioner (1980), vol.5(l), p.28: Law Society of Scotland, The Solicitors Compendium (Edinburgh, 1980).
32. See Law Society of Upper Canada, Communique, 10th December, 1981.
33. See eg. A Esau, “Recent Developments in Specialisation Regulation of the Legal Profession”, Manitoba Law Journal (1981). vol.11, p.133 at pp.170-176. Note that the previously liberal rules in Manitoba about advertising fields of practice were changed early in 1982; see National (1982), vol.19, no. 3.
34. Report (Ontario Government Bookstore. Toronto, 1980), pp.193-194.
35. See A Esau, “Specialisation and the Legal Profession”. Manitoba Law Journal (1979), vol.9, p.255.
36. For the Model Plan, an Explanation of it and Summary of Responses to it, see American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Specialisation, Information Bulletins Nos.6 and 7 (Chicago, 1980). For the position in the United States generally, see the annual Reports to the ABA’s House of Delegates by its Standing Committee on Specialisation: and Esau (note 33 above).
37. See eg. Esau (note 33 above). at pp.156-158.
38. See para.3.30 of this Report.
39. For the original scheme, see California State Bar Journal (1971), vol.46, p.182.
40. For a history of the scheme see Esau (note 3.28.1 above), at pp.139-149; “Forum: Legal Specialisation in California”. Los Angeles Lawyer (Feb 1980),p.10-California Lawyer (Dec 1981). p.15, and (May 1982). p.43.
41. See eg. Esau (note 33 above). at pp.149-156.
42. One existing and proposed two-tier systems in the US, see Esau (note 33 above), at pp.158-164.
43. See State Bar of California. Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 2-101.
44. For a fuller description of the position in the medical profession and for relevant sources, see our Discussion Paper, Advertising and Specialisation, pp.33-34 and 209.
45. For medical benefits legislation, see the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Commonwealth), and see the Annual Reports of the National Specialist Qualifications Advisory Committee.
46. For further details and relevant sources, see our Discussion Paper, Advertising and Specialisation. pp.34 and 209.
47. See The Chartered Accountant in Australia p.34.
48. For a fuller description of the matters mentioned in this paragraph, see our Discussion Paper, Advertising and Specialisation, pp. 34-35, 119-120, and para. 9.23 of this Report.
49. See Association of Consulting Engineers, Australia, Australian Trade Practices Reporter (1981), p.40-202.
50. Association of Consulting Engineers, Australia, Code of Ethics, rule 4(k).
