08 April 2025

Standards

The draft standards identified in the preceding post regarding the LACC accreditation are - 

2. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION 

2.1 Definitions 

In this document, unless the context requires otherwise –

active learning involves student engagement in critical analysis of the knowledge they acquire, application of that knowledge to factual situations or scenarios, producing solutions supported by legal arguments, and reflection on the process followed. 

Admission Rules means the LACC Model Admission Rules 2015. 

Admitting Authority means the body responsible for all or any of accrediting, monitoring, reviewing and re-accrediting a law course for the purpose of preparing students for admission to the legal profession. 

AQF means the Australian Qualifications Framework. 

assessment method is the manner by which a student’s learning may be tested and evaluated to be able to award a grade. Examples of different assessment methods include examinations, research essays, reflective notes and vivas, class participation, mooting and mock trials, oral examinations, problem solving exercises and practical tests, submissions and advice. 

CALD means the Council of Australian Law Deans. 

CALD Standards means the CALD Standards for Australian Law Schools. 

communication means the imparting or exchanging of information by oral, visual or verbal (including written) means. 

delivery mode means the manner by which the content of the law course is communicated for teaching, learning and assessment purposes. Delivery may be fully in-person, fully online, a blended combination including in-person and online, or by other modes to facilitate distance education. 

direct interaction occurs when two or more persons are communicating and engaging with one another in real time and can hear and, where available, see each other. 

EFTSL means Equivalent Full Time Student Load. 

element means – (a) in the case of a law school that follows the topics listed for a prescribed area of knowledge set out in Schedule 1 of the Admission Rules, one of those topics; or in the case of a law school that follows the topics set out in the guidelines provided for an prescribed area of knowledge set out in that Schedule, a topic included in the law school's curriculum for that area of knowledge. 

in-person means where two or more persons are face-to-face in the physical presence of the others whether on campus or at another location. 

invigilation means supervision whether in-person, online, by technological or other means, or a combination of means, to ensure the academic integrity of the grade  awarded to a student by the assessment method. For example, invigilation may be by using suitable automated supervision software or an examiner observing or supervising a student in the presence of the examiner (whether in-person or online). 

LACC means the Law Admissions Consultative Committee. 

law course means a tertiary academic course in law, whether or not it leads to a degree in law. 

law school includes – (a) an academic unit within a university responsible for conducting a law course  in Australia that leads to a degree or other qualification in law; or another institution conducting a law course  course that leads to a qualification in law, other than a university degree in law, 

online means participation in teaching and learning activities, or assessments, in a virtual or online environment that is connected to, served by, or available through the internet or other telecommunications network. An example is synchronous online learning. 

prescribed area of knowledge means an area of knowledge prescribed in Schedule 1 of the Admission Rules, the teaching of which may include statutory interpretation as set out in the LACC Statement on Statutory Interpretation. (Note:  Law Admissions Consultative Committee, Statement on Statutory Interpretation (2009).)

self-accrediting provider means a registered higher education provider that has been authorised under section 45 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (Cth) to self-accredit courses of study that lead to a higher education award that the provider offers or confers. 

synchronous online learning means direct interaction between a student, teacher and/or other students in a virtual or online environment. Examples include attending live-stream lectures (but not listening to a pre-recorded lecture), videoconference calls and interactive online chatroom discussions. 

teaching method means the way in which the law school communicates and teaches the content of the law course to students, which may depend on the delivery mode. Examples include lectures, workshops, seminars, tutorials, flipped classrooms, group discussions, group work, problem solving, moots, role-play, programmed sessions and simulations (but not student preparation or self-directed study). 

unit means a subject or unit of study that may be undertaken as part of a law course. 

TEQSA means the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.

Interpretation 

Headings are for convenience only, and do not affect interpretation. 

The following rules also apply in interpreting this document, except where the context makes it clear that a rule is not intended to apply. 

(a) A reference to – 

(i) a legislative provision or legislation (including subordinate legislation) is to that provision or legislation as amended, re-enacted or replaced, and includes any subordinate legislation issued under it; (ii) a document (including this document) is to that document or provision as amended, supplemented or replaced; (iii) a person includes any type of entity or body of persons, whether or not it is incorporated or has a separate legal identity, and any executor, administrator or successor in law of that person; and (iv) anything (including a right, obligation or concept) includes each part of it. 

(b) A singular word includes the plural and vice versa. 

(c) If a word or phrase is defined, any other grammatical form of that word or phrase has a corresponding meaning. 

(d) If an example is given of anything (including a right, obligation or concept) such as by saying it includes something else, the example does not limit the scope of the thing. 

(e) In deciding whether a student will have acquired or demonstrated appropriate understanding and competence in relation to an element or area of knowledge, as the case requires, an Admitting Authority will have regard to –

(i) the Level 7 criteria specified in the AQF; (ii) the Threshold Learning Outcomes for the Bachelor of Laws/LLB or Juris Doctor/JD as the case requires; and (iii) any other matter that the Admitting Authority considers relevant. 

PURPOSES OF THE STANDARDS 

The purposes of these Standards are – 

(a) to assist an Admitting Authority, when accrediting, monitoring, reviewing or re- accrediting a law course, to determine whether that law course –

(i) will provide for a student to acquire and demonstrate appropriate understanding and competence in each element of a prescribed area of knowledge; and (ii) will provide a student with the knowledge and skills to meets the requirements of the LACC Statement on Statutory Interpretation; 

(b) to provide clear, tangible guidance about what evidence is required to satisfy each standard relating to – (i) the delivery of the law course; (ii) the nature of a law course; (iii) the duration of a law course; (iv) the content of a law course; (v) teaching a prescribed area of knowledge; and (vi) assessment of a student's understanding and competence; and 

(c) to provide greater certainty for law schools about the matters which an Admitting Authority will consider relevant when accrediting, monitoring or re-accrediting a law course. 

4. THE STANDARDS 

4.1 The delivery of the law course 

• The law course, or one or more of the units which comprise it, may be delivered fully or partially online. (a) Explanatory note The law school may select the appropriate delivery mode across teaching, learning and assessments, for one or more units or the whole law course. The Admitting Authority may seek information from the law school about the delivery mode offered. 

4.2 The nature of the law course 

• The law course is a tertiary academic course in law, whether or not it leads to a degree in law. 

(a) Explanatory note 

The law course must be "a coherent sequence of units of study leading to the award of a qualification" in law.  This applies when a law course is a single degree and when a law course is part of a combined or double degree, to the law component of that combined or double degree. The qualification must be a degree or another similar qualification in law,  awarded upon successful completion of a tertiary academic course. A law course may be considered for accreditation is “a tertiary academic course … accredited in Australia" for the purposes of these Standards if it is either one of the following - (i) provided by a self-accrediting provider on the National Register of Higher Education Providers; (ii) currently accredited by TEQSA as leading to a regulated higher education award; or (iii) conducted by or on behalf of the New South Wales Legal Profession Admission Board. 

(b) How can a law school show that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to provide the Admitting Authority with evidence that - the law course leads to a degree or similar qualification in law; and is comprised of a coherent sequence of units of study which form a course designated as a law course; and the law course is – (A) provided by a self-accrediting provider on the National Register of Higher Education Providers; accredited by TEQSA as a course of study leading to a higher education award; or (C) conducted by or on behalf of the New South Wales Legal Profession Admission Board. 

4.3 The duration of the law course 

• The law course includes the equivalent of at least three years' full-time study of law. 

• Intensive or block delivery should only be used for a prescribed area of knowledge where the law school satisfies the Admitting Authority that it is appropriate in all the circumstances. 

(a) Explanatory note 

The total credit points for the  units in the law course must equal or exceed an EFTSL of 3.0. 

The course may be offered in a full-time, part-time or accelerated mode. 

An accelerated mode may include intensives, which are units taught during compressed timeframes outside the usual 12-week semester (i.e. two terms a year) or nine-week trimester (i.e. three terms a year) and might be taught over a winter or summer break, or through block learning models during shorter, but  more frequent, terms. The Admitting Authority may seek further information and data from the law school, for example, in relation to student attendance requirements and whether the intensive or block delivery would enable students to acquire the appropriate level of understanding and competence in the prescribed area/(s) of knowledge and statutory interpretation. 

The LACC Statement on Duration of Legal Studies, provides that the requirement for at least three years’ full-time study refers to three calendar years and that – A law course that can be completed in fewer than three years may be accredited … if the relevant law school satisfies the Admitting Authority that the course is, indeed, the equivalent of a three calendar year full- time course undertaken at the relevant law school, in terms of the breadth and depth of its content, the teaching methods to be employed and the assessment criteria and methodology. 

(b) How can a law school show that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to provide the Admitting Authority with evidence - (i) that the credit points allocated for the law course in total are equal to or exceed those required for an EFTSL of 3.0; and (ii) if the course can be completed in less than three calendar years, that the course is, indeed, the equivalent of a three calendar year full-time course undertaken at the relevant law school, in terms of the breadth and depth of its content, the teaching methods employed, and the applicable assessment criteria and methodology. 

A law school can give the Admitting Authority the same evidence about the duration of the course that it provided for the purpose of recently being reviewed externally or being accredited by either a self-accrediting provider or by TEQSA. If the law school chooses to do this, unless the Admitting Authority determines otherwise, it will need to – (i) show that the recent review or accreditation required the law school to satisfy a similar standard to that required by the Admitting Authority; and (ii) set out the relevant standard against which it was recently reviewed or accredited; (iii) set out when the review or accreditation occurred and by whom it was conducted, and (iv) give the Admitting Authority copies of the principal documentary evidence that it provided for the purpose of that review or accreditation. 

4.4 The learning outcomes for the law course

• The statement of learning outcomes for the law course is directed to enabling students to acquire and demonstrate appropriate understanding and competence in the prescribed areas of knowledge and statutory interpretation. 

(a) Explanatory note 

TEQSA requires the specified learning outcomes for each course of study to "encompass discipline-related and generic outcomes, including … knowledge and skills required for employment and further study related to the course of study, including those required to be eligible to seek registration to practise where applicable" (emphasis added). 

(b) How can a law school establish that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to – (i) set out any relevant learning outcomes for the law course; and (ii) show how achieving each of these outcomes will demonstrate that a student has acquired and demonstrated appropriate understanding and competence in each of the prescribed areas of knowledge. 

4.5 Content of the law course 

• The law course includes teaching or other instruction in each of the specified elements in each of the prescribed areas of knowledge set out in Schedule 1 of the Admission Rules. 

• The law course also meets the requirements of the LACC Statement on Statutory Interpretation. 

(a) Explanatory note 

A prescribed area of knowledge need not be taught in a  unit bearing the same name as that used for the area in the Admission Rules. Similarly, the elements of an area of knowledge need not be taught in one or unit; they could be taught in several units. 

An Admitting Authority may consider that the number of hours allocated to teaching a prescribed area of knowledge is relevant when determining whether that area is adequately covered. 

(b) How can a law school show that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to - (i) describe where each element of each prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation is taught in the law course. This might be done by way of a matrix or by mapping. Evidence could include the course syllabus, unit descriptions or, by way of examples, lecture outlines or reading guides; and (ii) estimate the total teaching hours allocated to the teaching of each prescribed area of knowledge, and describe the teaching methods having regard to the delivery modes for each prescribed area of knowledge indicating the predominant teaching method and delivery mode and the use of other teaching methods and delivery modes; and (iii) the total teaching hours provided should equate to at least 36 hours for each prescribed area of knowledge. If the estimated number of teaching hours for any prescribed area of knowledge is less than 36 hours because of the teaching method used or student research, demonstrate how the learning outcomes will be achieved in that area. 

4.6 Teaching the law course and active learning 

• Each prescribed area of knowledge and any unit subject relating to statutory interpretation is taught by people qualified to teach that area of knowledge. 

• The law school uses teaching methods which enable each student to acquire the appropriate understanding and competence in each element of every prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation. 

• An Admitting Authority will consider the number of hours provided for active learning and/or direct interaction in a prescribed area of knowledge when considering whether a law course will enable a student to acquire an adequate level of understanding and competence. 

• Each student in the law course has ready access to legal information resources that are sufficient in quantity and quality to enable the student to acquire the appropriate understanding and competence in each element of every prescribed area of knowledge. 

(a) Explanatory note The quality of teaching directly affects a student's acquisition of understanding and competence. Three dominant influences upon the quality of teaching are – (i) the qualifications and experience of the teachers; (ii) the teaching methods employed; and (iii) access to legal information resources, particularly library resources. A student needs to acquire both understanding and competence in each 11(b) element of each prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation. Admitting Authorities consider that this will not occur unless the teaching methods demonstrably require active learning. 

Admitting Authorities consider that direct interaction between students and teachers whether in-person or through synchronous online learning remains the primary reliable means of achieving these results. 

How can a law school show that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to satisfy the Admitting Authority that - 

(i) teachers in the program – • meet the AQF requirement that a teacher should have a degree one level higher than that of the course in which the person teaches, or • have equivalent experience in practice or teaching (which may be demonstrated by reference, say, to a person's specialist practice, scholarship, or standing in the academic community or legal profession), or • if a teacher does not fully meet either of the preceding criteria, that person's teaching is guided and overseen by other staff who do meet one or more of those criteria. 

A law school should provide a complete list of teaching staff (continuing, fixed-term and any casual staff employed at the date upon which accreditation or re-accreditation is sought) and their relevant academic qualifications. The Admitting Authority may request further information about the relevant practice or teaching experience of staff who do not have the requisite higher degree.); 

(ii) the methods generally employed in teaching prescribed areas of knowledge across all delivery modes, enable students to acquire appropriate understanding and competence in each element of that area of knowledge and statutory interpretation. (A law school will need to identify and explain any departures from those generally employed methods, in teaching any particular area of knowledge.); and 

(iii) the design of the law course and its program of instruction primarily comprises provides for at least 18 hours of either or both of – face-to-face instruction and active learning; and (B) instruction and learning involving direct interaction between teacher and student, whether in-person or through synchronous online learning, (A) (iv) (v) and enables students to acquire and demonstrate appropriate understanding and competence in each element of each prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation. 

(A law school will need to provide evidence of the extent to which the design of the law course and its program of instruction provides for active learning and/or direct interaction in each prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation.); and the law school enables each student to have ready access to legal information resources, in paper or in electronic form; and those resources are sufficient in quantity and quality to enable each student to acquire appropriate understanding and competence in each element of each prescribed area of knowledge. xx It would be relevant for an Admitting Authority to know whether the law school’s library has been independently assessed by the CALD Standards Committee and has been independently determined to have met, in this respect, the CALD Standards. 

A law school can give an Admitting Authority the same evidence about teaching each of the prescribed areas of knowledge and statutory interpretation Statutory Interpretation and about its legal information resources that it provided for the purpose of recently being reviewed externally or accredited by either a self-accrediting provider or by TEQSA. Unless the Admitting Authority determines otherwise, the law school will need to – show that the recent review or accreditation required the law school to satisfy a similar standard to that required by these Standards; and set out the relevant standard against which it was reviewed or accredited; and set out when the review or accreditation occurred and by whom it was conducted; and (iv) give the Admitting Authority copies of the principal documentary evidence that it provided for the purpose of that review or accreditation. 

4.7 Assessing understanding and competence 

• Assessment requirements verify that a student has – (i) acquired appropriate understanding and competence in every prescribed area of knowledge; and acquired the relevant knowledge and skills set out in the LACC 

• The law course requires a student to achieve at least a pass grade before satisfactorily completing any subject or unit in which a prescribed area of knowledge or statutory interpretation  is taught or assessed.  

• An Admitting Authority may consider for each unit that covers a prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation, the allocation of assessments, the assessment methods and whether a sufficient proportion of assessments are conducted by invigilation 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. 

(a) Explanatory note 

An Admitting Authority must be able to rely on a law school’s minimum requirement for completion - a pass grade - as the conclusive indicator that a student has, in fact, acquired an appropriate level of understanding and competence in every element of a prescribed area of knowledge and has acquired the relevant knowledge and skills set out in the LACC's Statement on Statutory Interpretation. 

Invigilation of assessments provides an extra level of quality assurance that the grades awarded to students accurately reflects their level of acquired understanding and competence, particularly in an online learning environment. 

(b)  How can a law school establish that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to - (i) provide evidence that it requires, and that students are made aware, that all elements of each prescribed area of knowledge and all of the law school's teaching or other instruction in statutory interpretation are assessable; and (ii) provide evidence that its methods of assessment methods in each  unit in which a prescribed area of knowledge is taught confirm that a student has attained an appropriate understanding and competence in that area; and (iii) provide evidence that its methods of assessment methods confirm that a student has achieved all of the outcomes specified in the LACC's Statement on Statutory Interpretation; and (iv) provide evidence that at least 50% of assessments for each unit that covers a prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation is conducted by invigilation; and (v) if grade descriptors apply to prescribed areas of knowledge, set out the descriptor for a pass grade; and (vi) explain the process it uses to satisfy itself that grades awarded accurately reflect the level of student attainment.

Law Teaching Standards

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.