The Legal Practice Council has withdrawn its 2022 notice permitting candidate attorneys to work remotely, directing that candidate attorneys must serve in the office of their principal under direct personal supervision.
The directive, issued on 31 July 2026 and effective from 3 August 2026, confirms the LPC’s strict interpretation of Rule 22.1.3.1 of the Rules made under the Legal Practice Act.
Rule 22.1.3.1 provides that a candidate attorney must, throughout the period specified in their practical vocational training contract, serve in the office of their principal under the direct personal supervision of the principal or an attorney who is a partner or other admitted attorney in the principal’s office.
The LPC’s latest directive states that these requirements are “peremptory” and cumulative. In other words, a candidate attorney must both serve in the principal’s office and receive direct personal supervision from the specified legal practitioners.
The development effectively brings an end to the flexibility introduced by the LPC’s 23 November 2022 notice on remote working.
The 2022 notice had recognised the changes to working environments following the COVID-19 pandemic and stated that the Council would not regard remote work by candidate attorneys as a breach of the rules, provided that the candidate attorney and principal disclosed the extent of remote work and explained how direct personal supervision was exercised.
The LPC has now withdrawn that notice.
Under the new directive, “direct personal supervision” requires regular, day-to-day, in-person oversight, guidance and control of the candidate attorney’s work and training at the relevant office.
The directive specifically states that arrangements where a candidate attorney works remotely or from home as a “standing, recurring or default arrangement” do not comply with Rule 22.1.3.1. Supervision conducted only or predominantly through telephone calls, emails, video conferences or other electronic means will also not constitute compliance.
The directive also addresses supervision by practitioners outside the principal’s office. A candidate attorney cannot rely on supervision by a legal practitioner who is neither the principal nor a partner or other admitted attorney in the principal’s office, including an attorney practising at another firm.
The LPC says the decision follows concerns arising from its experience with candidate attorneys, including matters identified through provincial councils, inspections and admission applications. According to the directive, the 2022 notice had created uncertainty around the supervision requirement and had, in some instances, been relied upon to justify arrangements where candidate attorneys received little or no direct personal supervision.
The Council specifically identified arrangements where supervision was conducted predominantly through electronic communication, or where the supervising practitioner was not in the principal’s office.
The LPC maintains that such arrangements undermine the purpose of practical vocational training, which is to ensure that candidates attain an adequate level of competence under proper supervision before being admitted as legal practitioners.
The directive also makes clear that the change is not merely a recommendation to firms.
A failure to comply with Rule 22.1.3.1 constitutes misconduct under the Code of Conduct and may result in referral to the LPC’s disciplinary bodies. More significantly for candidate attorneys, service rendered outside the requirements of the rule may not be recognised as proper service under a practical vocational training contract, potentially affecting admission and enrolment.
The LPC has therefore placed an additional responsibility on principals. Principals must ensure that their candidate attorneys serve in accordance with the rule and that direct personal supervision is provided by the principal or an appropriate admitted attorney in the principal’s office.
There are, however, specific absences that remain permitted under the Rules. These include certain authorised periods of absence, Council-approved training courses, approved service with another attorney and study leave for competency-based examinations. The directive does not remove these existing provisions.
Importantly, the directive operates prospectively. Service rendered before 3 August 2026 will be assessed with regard to the 2022 notice, provided that the disclosure requirements under that notice are met. Candidate attorneys and principals whose arrangements did not comply with the new requirements were required to regularise those arrangements by the effective date.
The LPC also leaves the door open to a future change. The Council says the question of whether Rule 22.1.3.1 should itself be amended to expressly accommodate supervision in modern working environments remains under consideration. Any amendment would have to follow the process prescribed by the Legal Practice Act and be published in the Government Gazette.
For now, however, the position is clear: candidate attorneys cannot work from home as a standing, recurring or default arrangement during their practical vocational training.
The decision places the legal profession at an interesting intersection between traditional models of professional training and the increasingly hybrid nature of modern legal practice. While many legal practitioners have embraced remote and flexible working, the LPC has drawn a clear distinction for candidate attorneys, prioritising physical presence and in-person supervision during the vocational training period.
For candidate attorneys currently serving their contracts, the message from the regulator is therefore straightforward: working from home is no longer something that can be justified by relying on the LPC’s 2022 remote-working notice.
The LPC’s new directive applies to all service rendered under a practical vocational training contract from 3 August 2026.
The LPC’s full directive, available on the Council’s website. Read the LPC directive
