Skip links and keyboard navigation

Supervision practices results 2011

We wrote to the managing partners/directors of all 172 law firms in Queensland with 7 or more practising certificate holders and to a number of government legal practices to invite them to complete the Supervision Practices Check during April and May 2011. We invited them to preserve their firm’s anonymity by identifying their firm solely by means of a secret and self-selected code known only to themselves.

A total of 16 firms accepted the invitation, and a total of 434 people completed the survey by the 23 May, 414 of whom identified as a member of one of the 16 participating law firms and 11 of whom identified themselves only as interested individuals. Seven (7) did not identify as either. Notably 240 of the 434 people who completed the survey identified themselves as legal practitioners, and 54% of them identified their employer law practice as an incorporated legal practice.

We have collated both the aggregated results (including various cross-tabulation reports) and the results for each participating law practice. We have included the comments the individual respondents entered in the free text boxes that accompanied some of the questions against those question numbers in the aggregated results for all 434 participants.

If you participated in this or any other of our ethics checks we would appreciate hearing your feedback - click here to complete our brief feedback survey.

Supervision practices check 2011 – the aggregated results

Supervision practices check 2011 – the cross-tabulated results for the participating law firms

We cross-tabulated the results to compare how the 416 people from the 16 participating law firms answered the questions according to their employment type within their firm, the length of their post-admission experience and their gender - the latter because the Commission's complaints data shows consistently that women lawyers are several times less likely than men lawyers to be subject to complaint (see the Commission's annual reports). We have divided the cross-tabulation by length of post-admission experience into cross-tabulation reports A and B because there are more than 5 categories of post-admission experience and the reports allow a maximum of 5 categories each. We have generated two cross-tabulation reports for employment type - one which cross tabulates how practitioners answered the survey questions according to their employment type within their firms and the other how non-practitioners answered the questions according to their employment type within their firms. We have also cross-tabulated the results according to the business structures of the participating law firms.

Supervision practices check 2011 - results for each participating law firm

We have codes for 16 firms, 5 of which have branch offices which also participated using branch office identifiers. The numbers of people answering from branch offices are with some exceptions, quite small. We have a policy of not publishing results where the numbers are so small that the individual staff completing the survey may be identified. Please click here to access a listing of the numbers of people answering from each of the branch offices. We suggest that the survey managers from those firms contact us to explore ways in which we might be able to make the branch results available.

Results for the overall firm codes:

Last reviewed
29 March 2012
Last updated
29 June 2012

Rate this page

  1. How useful was the information on this page?