The Legal Practice Council’s recent directive has significant implications for law firms employing candidate attorneys. Effective 3 August 2026, the LPC has withdrawn its 2022 remote-working notice and confirmed that candidate attorneys must comply strictly with Rule 22.1.3.1.
Remote and hybrid work have become an established feature of modern legal practice post-COVID-19. But for candidate attorneys serving under practical vocational training contracts (articles), the position has now been made considerably clearer.
The message to principals and candidate attorneys is essentially that working from home cannot be the normal arrangement for a candidate attorney, and supervision through technology alone is not enough.
What does Rule 22.1.3.1 require?
Rule 22.1.3.1 provides that a candidate attorney must, throughout the term of the PVT contract, serve in the office of the principal under the direct personal supervision of the principal, or of a partner or other admitted attorney in the principal’s office.
The LPC emphasises that these are two cumulative requirements:
- The candidate attorney must serve in the office of the principal; and
- The candidate attorney must be subject to direct personal supervision by the principal or an appropriate admitted attorney in that office.
It is not sufficient for a candidate attorney to be employed by a firm and merely have access to a principal or supervising attorney online.
The 2022 remote-working concession has been withdrawn
The directive is particularly significant because it expressly withdraws the LPC's Notice of 23 November 2022 concerning remote working by candidate attorneys.
That 2022 notice acknowledged the changes in working arrangements following the COVID-19 pandemic and indicated that the LPC would not regard remote work by candidate attorneys as a breach of the relevant rules, provided that the candidate and principal disclosed the arrangements fully in the admission application.
The LPC has now made it clear that the 2022 notice was merely an administrative communication. It did not amend, suspend or relax Rule 22.1.3.1, which the LPC says has remained in force throughout.
The Council says that experience since 2022 has revealed uncertainty and, in some instances, arrangements where candidate attorneys received little or no direct personal supervision.
That uncertainty has now been removed with the latest directive.
What does “direct personal supervision” mean?
The directive gives a particularly important explanation of what the LPC means by direct personal supervision.
It requires regular, day-to-day, in-person oversight, guidance, and control of the candidate attorney's work and training at the office where the candidate serves. The supervision must be exercised by the principal or by a partner or other admitted attorney in that office.
The directive specifically identifies several arrangements that will not satisfy Rule 22.1.3.1.
These include:
- a standing, recurring or default arrangement where the candidate attorney works remotely or from home;
- supervision conducted only or predominantly by telephone, email, video conferencing or other electronic means;
- supervision by a practitioner who is not the principal, partner or other admitted attorney in the principal's office; and
- situations where the principal is absent from the practice for an extended period and no appropriate attorney is present to provide the required direct personal supervision, unless the applicable provisions relating to service with another attorney or cession of the PVT contract have been complied with.
This is therefore not simply a requirement that the candidate attorney should be available online during working hours. The LPC's interpretation requires physical presence and personal interaction as part of the supervision process.
Does this mean candidate attorneys can never work remotely?
The directive does not eliminate the specific absences already permitted by the Rules. These include certain periods of absence with the principal's consent, LPC-authorised absence, approved training, approved service with another attorney and study leave for the competency-based examinations (CBE).
The important distinction is between an authorised absence and remote work becoming part of the candidate attorney's ordinary working arrangement.
A firm therefore cannot simply designate a candidate attorney as a “hybrid worker” and assume that occasional online supervision will satisfy the requirements of the PVT contract.
Why has the LPC taken this position?
The LPC links its position directly to the purpose of practical vocational training.
The purpose of articles is not merely to provide a candidate with employment in a law firm. It is intended to ensure that a person who ultimately seeks admission and enrolment as a legal practitioner has developed an adequate level of competence under appropriate supervision.
The LPC considers arrangements involving little or no direct personal supervision to be inconsistent with that objective and with its statutory responsibilities relating to the public interest and professional standards.
This is an important point for principals: supervision is not an administrative formality attached to a training contract, but a substantive part of the training itself.
There are serious consequences for getting this wrong
The LPC states that failure by a legal practitioner, candidate legal practitioner or juristic entity to comply with Rule 22.1.3.1 constitutes misconduct and may result in referral to the LPC's disciplinary bodies.
There may also be consequences for the candidate attorney's admission as an attorney in the High Court.
The LPC states that service rendered otherwise than in compliance with Rule 22.1.3.1 may not be recognised as proper service under the PVT contract. This could have serious consequences for the candidate attorney's admission and enrolment. The directive expressly warns that non-compliance by principals may therefore gravely prejudice the candidate attorneys in their employ.
For firms, this makes compliance a matter of risk management as well as professional responsibility.
What should law firms do now?
Any firm employing candidate attorneys should review its current arrangements without delay.
Principals should consider:
1. Reviewing remote and hybrid-working arrangements
Identify whether any candidate attorney currently works from home on a standing, recurring, or default basis. If so, the arrangement should be reassessed against the directive.
2. Confirming who provides supervision
Make sure that supervision is being provided by the principal or by a partner or other admitted attorney in the principal's office.
3. Reviewing the principal's availability
Where a principal is regularly away from the practice for extended periods, firms should ensure that the requirements for appropriate supervision are still met.
4. Keeping proper records
Firms should maintain appropriate records of the candidate attorney's training, supervision and any authorised periods of absence. This can be particularly important when the candidate eventually applies for admission as an attorney.
5. Reviewing admission documentation
The LPC has emphasised that applicants and principals must make full and frank disclosure in admission affidavits of periods during which the candidate did not serve in the principal's office and how direct personal supervision was exercised.
What about existing candidate attorneys?
The directive contains an important transitional provision.
It operates prospectively. Service rendered before 3 August 2026 will be assessed with due regard to the 2022 notice, provided that the disclosure required by that notice is made in the admission application.
However, the LPC states that principals and candidate attorneys whose current arrangements do not comply with Rule 22.1.3.1 had to regularise those arrangements by the effective date of 3 August 2026.
For candidate attorneys and firms currently operating under hybrid arrangements, an immediate compliance review is essential.
A changing workplace, a clear training requirement
Interestingly, the LPC acknowledges that the question of whether Rule 22.1.3.1 should itself be amended to expressly accommodate modern working environments remains under consideration. Any such amendment would have to follow the formal process prescribed by the Legal Practice Act and be published in the Government Gazette. Until that happens, the existing rule applies according to its terms.
The directive therefore does not necessarily represent the final word on remote working in practical vocational training. But it is the current position of the regulatory body, and firms cannot rely on the more flexible approach contained in the 2022 notice.
Conclusion
For candidate attorneys, remote working is no longer something that can be treated as a normal or default part of their articles.
For principals, the responsibility is equally clear. Candidate attorneys must receive regular, day-to-day, in-person supervision in the office by an appropriately qualified attorney.
Finally, for law firms, the practical lesson is simple. Review your PVT contract arrangements now, document your supervision processes, and ensure that your firm's working practices align with the LPC directive.
Last updated on 21 August 2026.