The Admissions Committee of the Legal Services Council (Council) and the Law Admissions
Consultative Committee (LACC) Consultation paper on
proposed revisions to the
Accreditation Standards
for Australian Law Courses notes
The Council is a statutory body that oversees the operation of the Legal Profession Uniform Law
in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia.
The Council’s Admissions Committee develops the Legal Profession Uniform Admission Rules
and provides advice to the Council about admissions matters.
The LACC is a national group that reports to the Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New
Zealand. The LACC’s main role is to forge consensus on admission and admission-related
matters nationally, between the bodies represented by its members. The Council provides the
LACC with secretariat support.
The Admissions Committee and the LACC work closely together to facilitate national consistency
in admissions matters.
About this consultation
LACC first published the Accreditation Standards for Australian Law Courses (Standards) in July
2018. The Standards set important minimum standards for the accreditation of law courses. The
Standards also seek to give law schools greater certainty about the matters which an admitting
authority will consider relevant when accrediting, monitoring or re-accrediting a law course.
In late 2023, the Committees became aware of some emerging issues in relation to the
accreditation of law courses, partly arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The
Committees resolved to undertake an initial targeted consultation to explore how these issues
might be addressed. Key issues under exploration included how the Standards might be
enhanced to respond to the prevalence of virtual or online delivery and given the emergence of
new digital technologies. The initial consultation also explored other matters, such as the use of
intensives or block delivery models.
Having considered the range of views expressed in initial consultation submissions in late 2024,
the Committees have developed draft revised Standards (Draft Revised Standards) for public
consultation. The Draft Revised Standards are attached (Attachment A).
Relevant overarching policy considerations
In developing the Draft Revised Standards, the Committees have given particular consideration
to the desirability of minimum standards for the accreditation of law courses across Australia
which are fit for purpose in the context of widespread online or blended delivery and other
developments in contemporary Australian legal education, so as to further national consistency.
Other policy considerations the Committees have taken into account include:
• the legislative objective of regulation which is efficient, effective, targeted and proportionate
and the development of accreditation policies and procedures which are consistent, uniform
and transparent across Australia
• recognition of the broader national higher education regulatory landscape and higher
education policy settings, including the role of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards
Agency (TEQSA) and its regulatory and enforcement powers
• the importance of innovation in the design and delivery of law courses to achieve enhanced
student learning outcomes
• equity, accessibility, diversity and inclusion for students to be able to attain a legal qualification
and enter the legal profession, and
• potential implementation impacts on law course providers.
Proposed revisions to the Standards
The Committees propose revisions to update, clarify and streamline the Standards in relation to
the delivery of law courses, and support effective online learning with respect to teaching hours
and the introduction of new requirements for active learning and invigilated assessments. The
proposed revisions would also introduce additional guidance for intensives and block learning
models and make other minor changes. The Committees propose a transitional period, as set out
below.
Online delivery of law courses
The Committees are aware of the growth in the number of law courses being delivered online and
are concerned to ensure that the Standards support online delivery which is appropriate and
effective in achieving student learning outcomes.
The proposed revisions to the Standards reflect the existing position that law courses may be
delivered fully in-person, fully online or via a blended delivery model. In this context, the
Committees propose new requirements to support the effectiveness of online delivery, including
by setting minimum standards for active learning and student engagement (set out in the next
section).
This approach aligns with the national regulation of tertiary education providers which, to promote
innovation, flexibility and focus on learning design and delivery outcomes across providers, does
not prescribe types of delivery modes. It also recognises that policy at the national level
acknowledges online learning as a legitimate way to promote equity, access and inclusion in
higher education.
The Committees have heard initial consultation feedback about the importance of ensuring that
certain cohorts of students, such as women, First Nations people, those living in regional, rural,
remote and very remote (RRRR) areas and those from neurodiverse backgrounds or with a
disability, have improved access to legal education by law courses being offered fully or partially
online. This enhances diversity of representation across the legal profession and in RRRR areas
seeking to attract lawyers. The Committees recognise the role of the Standards in supporting
these objectives, while maintaining appropriate minimum standards in relation to law courses.
The relevant changes in the Draft Revised Standards are as follows:
• new clause 4.1 (The delivery of the law course)
• adjusted and new definitions at clause 2.1 for “online”, “delivery mode”, “in-person” and
“synchronous online learning”, as well as the deletion of the “face-to-face” definition, and
• ancillary adjustments to clause 4.6 (Teaching of the law course and active learning) to extend
current Standards to apply to the range of delivery modes possible for online learning.
The revised definitions have been developed taking into account initial consultation feedback
about the need for:
• clearer definitions to respond to the widespread online delivery of law courses
• clearer delineation between synchronous and other online learning, and having regard to
consistency with the national regulation of tertiary education providers • a definition for “delivery mode” that does not limit the types of delivery modes permitted when
tertiary education providers offer a course of study
• updating the definition of “online” by removing references to technological hardware given the
emergence of laptops, tablets, wearables and the possible development of other new types of
hardware, and
• removal of the “face-to-face” definition, as it was creating some confusion. Instead, the
Committees propose that the definition of “in-person” will continue to apply with slight
modification.
Teaching hours, active learning and student engagement
The Committees propose revisions in response to initial stakeholder feedback that the Standards:
• be brought up-to-date by clarifying that teaching may be delivered not just in-person, but also
through online or blended delivery modes, and
• provide an indicative range of possible ways in which teaching may occur through the
introduction of a definition for “teaching method”.
Consistent with the clarifications for online learning, the Draft Revised Standards propose
revisions at clause 4.5 (Content of the law course) and the introduction of new definitions at clause
2.1 for “delivery mode” and “teaching method” to provide clearer guidance as to what may count
towards the 36 hours of teaching for each Priestley 11 subject.
To support effective online delivery, the Committees also propose to make updates to the
Standards in relation to active learning and student engagement. The Committees propose these
revisions in response to initial stakeholder feedback that active learning and student engagement
in an online learning environment is best supported by synchronous online learning, and that the
Draft Revised Standards can best achieve consistency in accreditation by setting a threshold
number of hours to promote active student learning and engagement that would apply across all
delivery modes.
The Draft Revised Standards propose revisions to clause 4.6 (Teaching the law course) by
transferring commentary, with minor modification, about “active learning” to a new definition at
clause 2.1 and by updating the definition of “direct interaction” to ensure it is appropriate for an
online teaching and learning environment.
The minor modifications to the definition of “active learning” remove the reference to “test” (so
there is no confusion with assessments) and includes a reference to factual “scenarios”.
The introduction of a new proposed requirement at clause 4.6 would allow an admitting authority
to consider the number of hours provided by a law school for a student’s active learning and
engagement in a Priestley 11 subject when considering whether a law course will enable a student
to acquire an adequate level of understanding and competence.
The Committees consider the provision of a minimum number of 18 hours for active learning
and/or direct interaction, whether the student’s participation is in-person or through synchronous
online learning, sets an appropriate balance between active and other learning. A minimum
18 hours is proposed as this would equate to 50% of the student experience with respect to the
36 hours of teaching for a Priestley 11 subject.
Invigilated assessments
In relation to assessments, the Committees received feedback in the initial stakeholder
consultation that:
• universities should continue to have flexibility to allow for best practice innovation in
assessment design and to select the assessment method that best achieves the desired
learning outcomes, and
• it would be appropriate for a requirement to be imposed that at least 50% or half of all
assessments for a Priestley 11 subject must be conducted by a form of invigilated assessment.
This seeks to provide a sufficient level of assurance that a student has been appropriately
awarded their grades and law degree.
The Draft Revised Standards introduce a new requirement at clause 4.7 (Assessing
understanding and competence) and new definitions for “assessment method” and “invigilation”
at clause 2.1.
The introduction of a new requirement at clause 4.7 would allow an admitting authority to consider
for each unit of the law course that covers a Priestley 11 subject and statutory interpretation, the
allocation of assessments, the assessment methods and whether a sufficient proportion of those
assessments are conducted by invigilation (whether an online invigilated exam or another type of
invigilated assessment). This will allow the admitting authority to ensure the law course provides
an appropriate level of quality assurance that a student has been awarded a grade that accurately
reflects their level of acquired understanding and competence.
The Draft Revised Standards impose a new requirement at clause 4.7(b) that at least 50% of
assessments for a unit covering a Priestley 11 subject and statutory interpretation be conducted
by a form of invigilated assessment. The new requirement does not require any specific method
of invigilated assessment to allow law schools flexibility to use a method of assessment that would
best achieve the intended learning outcomes and suit the delivery mode.
The introduction of a new definition for “assessment method” seeks to respond to initial
stakeholder feedback that it would be helpful to include examples of the types of assessments
that law schools may use in addition to examinations.
The introduction of a new definition for “invigilation” seeks to confirm that supervision of an
assessment applies to all types of delivery modes, including when an assessment is conducted
in-person or online.
Intensives and block learning models
The Committees received initial stakeholder feedback that it would enhance national consistency
of accreditation if there was additional guidance in the Standards about the use of intensives and
block delivery and what is needed for a law course to be considered “intensive”.
While the Committees are aware of two law schools that have already introduced block delivery
of a whole law course, other stakeholders have expressed reservations about the appropriateness
of intensive or block delivery models for Priestley 11 subjects.
To respond to the initial stakeholder feedback, the Committees propose to update the Standards
to include additional guidance that intensive or block delivery should only be used for Priestley 11
subjects where the law school satisfies the admitting authority that it is appropriate in all the
circumstances. To support this, it is proposed that the Standards also provide commentary that
an admitting authority may seek further information and data from a law school, and that the
Standards include more information about the nature of accelerated modes of delivery, of which
intensive or block learning models are a type.
The proposed additional guidance acknowledges the practices of the Victorian and New South
Wales admitting authorities which have already considered or are in the process of considering
the offerings of the two law schools that have already introduced block delivery models for a whole
law course.
By making these amendments to the Standards, it is intended that law schools may make a case
for delivery in accelerated mode (intensive or block delivery) by satisfying the admitting authority
that it is appropriate in all the circumstances for Priestley 11 subjects to be delivered in the
proposed way. It is also intended that law schools that adopt intensive or block delivery of
Priestley 11 subjects would still need to meet the at least three-year (or equivalent) requirement
for the duration of the law course and the proposed new minimum requirement for active learning
and student engagement discussed above. It may be open to the admitting authority to consider
whether a reduced number of teaching hours would be permissible for a Priestley 11 subject.
The Draft Revised Standards propose amendments at clause 4.3 (The duration of the law course)
in response to the initial stakeholder feedback.
Other minor revisions
The Draft Revised Standards propose other minor revisions to update, clarify and streamline in
response to initial stakeholder feedback. These include:
• a new definition of “law course” at clause 2.1 that draws from the drafting in the Uniform Law
Admission Rules12 and further commentary in the explanatory note at clause 4.2(a) to clarify
the requirement for a coherent sequence of units applies to a law course that is a single degree
and, for a combined or double degree, to the law component of the combined or double degree
• a new definition of “unit” at clause 2.1 that is consistent with the TEQSA definition13 and
accompanying revisions throughout the Draft Revised Standards, for example at clauses 4.2,
4.3 and 4.5, and
• updates to the definition of “prescribed areas of knowledge” at clause 2.1 and elsewhere to
include statutory interpretation.
Regulatory landscape
The LACC Standards operate alongside the Australian Law School Standards,14 developed by
the Council of Australian Law Deans (CALD), as well as the broader national regulation of the
higher education sector by TEQSA.
When developing the Draft Revised Standards, the Committees have been mindful of TEQSA’s
resourcing, role and regulatory powers in maintaining academic integrity in the tertiary education
sector, and TEQSA having particular focus on responding to commercial contract cheating
services and the emergence of generative AI. The Committees have also considered what
universities and law schools are required to do to meet the TEQSA academic integrity
requirements. Each university is required to have an up-to-date academic integrity policy and
procedures that respond to contract cheating and generative AI, and to comply with the TEQSA
re-accreditation process, regular TEQSA audits, and respond to enquiries or participate in other
initiatives.
To support universities adapt and respond to contract cheating and generative AI, TEQSA has
published extensive resources, guidance and best practice materials about how universities can
maintain academic integrity with respect to these technological developments. Anyone,
including universities, students and members of the public, can report an alleged contract
cheating service to TEQSA. Regarding generative AI, TEQSA encourages universities to take
the approach that “assessment and learning experiences equip students to participate ethically
and actively in a society where AI is ubiquitous”.
The Committees are mindful not to include requirements in the Standards that would replicate
these aspects of TEQSA’s work. This aligns with the intended application of the Standards, that
they complement and not duplicate the standards of CALD and TEQSA.
Proposed implementation timing
The Committees anticipate working towards a publication date in the second half of 2025,
although this may depend on the nature of the feedback received through the consultation
process.
The Committees propose there be a staggered two-year implementation period to facilitate
transition.
During this period:
• The final revised Standards will be published one year before the date of commencement.
• In the year following commencement, the final revised Standards will apply to:
o all applications for accreditation and re-accreditation, and
o all other accredited law courses. It is anticipated that each admitting authority will
communicate with law schools which are in this category.