Proposed revisions to accreditation standards for Australian law courses
2 April 2026
On 26 March 2026, the Law Council of Australia submitted recommendations to the Admissions Committee of the Legal Services Council and the Law Admissions Consultative Committee (LACC) regarding proposed revisions to the Accreditation Standards for Australian Law Courses. The submission emphasises the importance of ensuring law graduates are practice-ready, ethically committed, and equipped with essential legal knowledge and skills.
Key recommendations:
- Practice-ready graduates: Law courses should prepare students for legal practice without requiring additional university education. Accredited programs must focus on creating durable doctrinal foundations, professional skills, and a strong sense of professional identity.
- Generalist degrees: Law should not be treated as a generalist degree. Programs intended to produce practicing lawyers must actively engage students in legal education. Generalist law degrees should be clearly distinguished and not accredited.
- Online learning: The Law Council opposes wholly online law degrees, citing concerns about the lack of professional community and insufficient development of skills and knowledge. If accredited, such programs must demonstrate substantial course engagement and professionally relevant activities.
- Intensive and block teaching models: Intensive or block teaching models should not be used for foundational "Priestley 11" courses, as these require extended periods for absorption and application. Such models may be suitable for electives or postgraduate programs with stringent controls.
- Active learning: Active learning, particularly in-person, is critical for developing legal knowledge and skills. Structured opportunities for interaction, practice, and reflection should be prioritised, with attendance at scheduled active learning classes being mandatory.
- Assessment standards: Robust, fair, and reliable assessment methods should be adopted, and in-person invigilation should be the usual requirement for examinations to ensure integrity and prevent misuse of AI and online resources.
- Practical legal training: Embedding practical legal training, such as moots, client interviews, and mock negotiations, into law courses is encouraged to enhance practice readiness. These activities provide valuable real-world experience and help bridge the gap between theory and practice.
- Transparency and audits: Law schools should publicly report key metrics, such as cohort size, staff-student ratios, retention rates, and assessment methods, as part of the accreditation process. Accreditation reviews should include grading trends, assessment scrutiny, and misconduct processes.
- Third-party providers: The growing role of third-party education providers in law programs should be monitored to ensure professional standards are maintained. Law schools should disclose the role and content provided by these providers during accreditation.
- Professional conduct for academics: The Law Council recommends clarifying the professional duties of legal academics who are admitted solicitors or barristers.
In this submission, the Law Council underscores the need for rigorous standards to ensure the quality and integrity of legal education in Australia. Our recommendations seek to prioritise active learning, practical training, and robust assessment while addressing challenges posed by online learning and AI. These measures aim to produce competent, ethical, and practice-ready law graduates who can meet the demands of the legal profession.
Last Updated on 02/04/2026