Supervision in legal practice – why it matters and how to get it right

Effective legal supervision goes beyond mere oversight, requiring structured guidance, ethical accountability and an investment in time, write Felicity Bell and Vishwa Shah.

In short:

• Supervision of lawyers is not just about error-checking – it should include instruction, mentoring and the assumption of professional responsibility for another practitioner’s work.
• An ‘open-door’ policy has been the preferred approach for supervision in many organisations, but this step alone is insufficient for good supervision as it puts the onus on the supervisee to seek help and interrupt the supervisor.
• Being a good supervisor takes time and involves more than delegating and reviewing work, but it brings significant rewards.

Supervision in legal practice refers to a process whereby a more experienced practitioner oversees, guides and takes responsibility for the work of a junior or less-experienced practitioner.

Effective supervision is not limited to mere error-checking or providing oversight. Rather, it includes instruction, mentoring and the assumption of professional responsibility for another practitioner’s work.

This model of supervised legal practice comes from the apprenticeship model of legal training, under which aspiring practitioners entered articles of clerkship and learned from experienced practitioners through close and ongoing supervision. Supervised legal practice in Australia is a modern, statutory adaptation of the apprenticeship model, mandated for newly admitted practitioners. Supervision is a key mechanism for training junior practitioners in technical legal skills and professional norms.

The current statutory requirements of supervised legal practice are provided in the Uniform Law (for the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia) and the equivalent governing professional legislation in the other states and the Northern Territory.* Typically, newly admitted practitioners must engage in 18 to 24 months of supervised practice before this condition can be removed from their practising certificate.

For example, Rule 37 of the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW) provides that: “[a] solicitor with designated responsibility for a matter must exercise reasonable supervision over solicitors and all other employees engaged in the provision of the legal services for that matter”. “Reasonable” supervision involves proportionate oversight based on risk, complexity and the experience of the practitioner to ensure that legal services are delivered competently and ethically when a junior practitioner is involved.

Supervision is important for many reasons, but two that stand out are the role the supervision plays in developing new professionals, and the importance of ethical practice.

Becoming a professional

The concept of ‘imposter syndrome’ (or, relatedly, being an ‘insecure overachiever’) is probably familiar to many lawyers. Junior lawyers may be especially prone to feeling that they do not belong and are not capable, and experiencing anxiety that they will be ‘found out’. Good supervision should provide invaluable guidance and training, assisting juniors to learn and develop as independent professionals. In so doing, it can help mitigate these feelings of anxiety and stress among junior lawyers by providing the right blend of support and opportunities for growth, or reassurance and stretch.

On the other hand, poor supervision might drive new lawyers out of the workplace, or even out of the profession altogether.

Engaging in ethical practice

Supervisors are teaching the ins and outs of the practical skills that new lawyers need for career success. Supervisees need to learn but also know that there is someone there to catch their mistakes. Supervised practice is part of lawyers’ learning to engage in ethical practice. At the same time, supervisors bear the responsibility for ethical lapses on the part of the supervisee.

Insight into some recent failures of supervision can be seen in instances of AI misuse which have come before the courts. In a 2025 Federal Court case, a junior solicitor used Google Scholar to generate citations for court documents, leading to the filing of misleading evidence.  The junior was working remotely without access to the court documents in question, while the supervising solicitor was unaware as to whether anyone had checked the junior solicitor’s work.

The court confirmed that it was unreasonable for the supervisor to exercise such a low level of supervision, given the junior’s lack of experience and that they were remote from the supervisor. This resulted in the solicitors’ firm personally paying the respondents’ costs on an indemnity basis – demonstrating the severe consequences courts will impose on a gross lack of supervision.

What are some current supervision danger zones?

1. Setting up expectations for the supervisory relationship

More than 40% of respondents to a survey conducted by the Victorian Legal Services Board + Commissioner (VLSCB+C) wanted a better understanding of the purpose of supervision and what they were meant to be learning. Structured plans such as those provided by legal regulators and Law Societies may be a good starting point for setting expectations.

An ‘open-door’ policy has been the preferred approach for supervision in many organisations, meaning a supervisee should feel free to seek advice from the supervisor at any time. However, this alone is insufficient for good supervision.

It puts the onus on the supervisee to work out when they need help and when they must interrupt the supervisor.

Remote working will also impact the effectiveness of an open-door policy. If it is challenging for a supervisee to knock on a door and admit to a mistake, or ask for help, it is likely to be even more difficult to phone or email a supervisor.

Creating positive routines for supervision will assist in managing expectations. This might include regular meetings and times for debriefing and feedback. Often, a supervisee will benefit from understanding where their task fits into a larger matter and explicit direction as to where the learning opportunity lies for them. If a supervisor expects something to be challenging, or conversely straightforward, it helps to set that expectation at the start of the task.

2. Navigating remote working arrangements

As seen in Murray, working remotely without adequate supervision can increase the danger of junior practitioners generating incorrect, incompetent or even unethical legal work. Lack of physical contact between supervisor and supervisee can reduce the visibility of the process that the junior undertakes to deliver the final work product, and often does not allow for the immediate and informal feedback that effective supervision depends on.

Remote working already carries certain challenges for junior lawyers in delineating their work and personal life alongside having to navigate technological issues and digital communication nuances.  Being remote from one’s supervisor can add to these stresses and challenges.

For supervisors, it may give rise to increased risk due to reduced oversight and juniors being less likely to seek out guidance and ask questions. It also might make the development of a trusting relationship between supervisor and supervisee more onerous, with more planning, intentionality and structure needed.

3. Lack of time

Another key finding from the VLSCB+C was that fewer than half of the supervisees who responded to the survey felt that their supervisor had adequate time to supervise them.

Operating under time constraints means that supervisors need to think creatively about how to compensate for lack of time by offering effective and meaningful supervision. Clarity of initial instructions can save considerable time down the track, while taking a few moments to include supervisees in meetings or tasks can create learning opportunities.

In terms of feedback, often brief but immediate debriefing or feedback can be as effective as more detailed feedback that is delivered later in time. In short, early investments of time will likely pay off as the supervisee develops their independence.

While no one can create more time, recognising the importance of supervision is also a key structural lever. Supervision per se may not be billable, but developing someone into a competent, ethical and independent legal practitioner is a valuable activity that should be rewarded.

Conclusion

Being a good supervisor can be a big ask – it takes time, and it can mean doing much more than simply delegating work and reviewing it. However, it also carries intrinsic rewards, such as seeing a new lawyer develop into a capable and independent professional, and extrinsic ones, such as that person using their capabilities for the benefit of the organisation, developing loyalty and contributing to a positive workplace culture.

Dr Felicity Bell is the Deputy Director of the Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession (CFLP) at the University of New South Wales Faculty of Law & Justice (UNSW) and Senior Lecturer at UNSW. In addition to working as an academic, she has previously worked as a solicitor in private practice and most recently as a specialist legal advisor for state government.

Vishwa Shah is an intern at the Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession at UNSW. She is also a final year Laws (Hons) and Commerce (Information Systems) student at UNSW and is currently working in private practice as a​ paralegal.

* Legal Profession Act 2006 (NT); Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld); Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA); Legal Profession Act 2007 (Tas).