Catherine Stewart: Law Association expert calls for stricter regulation for employment advocates

Issues are arising with employment advocates, who are able to represent clients without being lawyers. 

A judge described a recent run in as abusive and unprofessional, renewing calls for stricter regulation. 

Catherine Stewart from the Law Association joins with more. 

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now we've got issues in the employment court. Are the
recurs for employment advocates to be regulated. They're currently allowed
to represent clients without actually being lawyers law associations. Katsmine
Stewart's well this Catsmin morning to you.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
Good morning, Mike.

Speaker 1 (00:12):
Has this been bubbling away for a while? Is this
a major issue?

Speaker 2 (00:15):
It's been bubbling away for a long time, Mike, for
about the past two decades. And yes, it's a major
issue because employment law advocates are not regulated, so there's
no requirements for them to have any skills, experience, or qualifications.
So it is a major issue.

Speaker 1 (00:29):
Why would I, if I was in the employment court
bring along somebody who doesn't know what they're doing? What
would be the point of that?

Speaker 2 (00:35):
Well, a lot of the time, to be fair, Mike,
people don't actually realize the distinction between advocates and lawyers.
So lay people might, for example, google employment law expert
or employment law specialist and these names come up, and
they understandably think that they're dealing with lawyers. And that
has been an issue of confusion for a long time,

(00:55):
which is a consumer protection angle, So people might not understand.

Speaker 1 (01:00):
Don't you have to better yourself? Is not a lawyer
or something like you realize I'm not a lawyer, I
am whatever or not.

Speaker 2 (01:06):
There's no such requirement. No, So this leads to a
lot of misunderstanding in the public and a lot of confusion,
and it adds to a lot of distress that we
see by clients who sometimes other lawyers pick up the
files and clients are confused and upset and distress. So
it's very unfortunate because people are often in vulnerable situations
to start with and feeling anxious, and this adds to

(01:28):
their distress. So that's one issue. Look, look, I'm not
going to say none of them are any good, no,
but some of them are highly problematic. I'm not going
to tar all advocates with one brush. Some of them
are behaving completely appropriately, but there are enough of enough
of them who aren't to make this a very real problem.

(01:49):
And as we've seen from the latest case, the employment
court described the advocates behavior as unprofessional and abusive. And
this is the tip of the iceberg.

Speaker 1 (01:59):
Marc, how much if I ended up in court, how
much of it's about the law as opposed to the
nuance and subtlety and the emotion of the circumstances in
which I have found myself.

Speaker 2 (02:13):
Well, it's largely about the law, and it's also about
the processes that you know how to follow. So in
court there are quite formal protocols and you need to
be aware of procedures like discovery or intelocatory applications, or
evidence or cross examination. So if you're represented by someone
who isn't aware of all of those things and doesn't

(02:35):
have the skills, then you know you are certainly on
the back foot. I would say, if you don't have
a lawyer who understands all those things, and there can
be a lot of harm done. So yes, so I
would certainly advocate strongly for the fact that that lawyers
have those knowledge, you know, that knowledge and experience, and
people who represent them without that knowledge and experience would

(02:57):
be at a disadvantage.

Speaker 1 (02:58):
Exactly, all right, Gus, I appreciate your side. Catherine Stewart,
the Law Association's Employment Law Committee. Convenient for more from
the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to news Talks at
b from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.