In an unprecedented move, NSW Chief Justice Andrew Bell has publicly condemned the College of Law for amassing an enormous financial surplus while continuing to charge aspiring lawyers exorbitant fees for mandatory training. His blistering critique has sent shockwaves through the legal profession, calling into question the financial practices of one of Australia’s largest legal education providers.
College of Law Rakes in Millions
The College of Law, which bills itself as a not-for-profit entity, has reportedly generated an average annual surplus of $16 million over the past decade, culminating in retained earnings of nearly $180 million. According to Chief Justice Bell, “the College of Law has been generating an average ‘surplus’ of almost $16 million per annum over the past decade and accumulated ‘retained earnings’ of just under $180 million.”
These revelations have raised serious concerns about the fairness and transparency of the College’s fee structure. The Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice (GDLP)—a compulsory qualification for law graduates seeking admission—costs between $11,000 and $12,000, a sum Bell described as “an extremely large amount of money which may well present a significant barrier to entry to the legal profession, especially given the increasing cost of university fees.”
Bell’s concerns were not merely rhetorical. He confirmed that he had personally raised the issue with the College’s chairman and chief executive, questioning the justification for generating substantial annual surpluses from students. As a direct result of this intervention, the College has announced a significant reduction in PLT tuition fees to $9,200, with a commitment to ongoing reviews of pricing structures.
Peter O’Brien: ‘Decades of Fleecing Students’
Echoing the Chief Justice’s sentiments, Peter O’Brien, our Principal Solicitor at O’Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors, has described the situation as both extraordinary and outrageous.
“It is extraordinary that such enormous amounts are being hoarded for such an organisation,” Peter O’Brien said. “It is extremely good that this matter has been brought to light after decades of fleecing students.”
College of Law scandal
Beyond the financial controversy, Bell also highlighted how the existing structure of PLT fees creates inequities in the profession. Many large law firms cover the costs of PLT for new recruits, effectively securing top talent while imposing conditions such as minimum tenure requirements. However, for young lawyers aspiring to enter the public sector—such as Legal Aid, the Aboriginal Legal Service, or community legal centres—this financial burden presents a significant barrier.
“The administration of justice requires capable, well-motivated young lawyers in these publicly important roles,” Bell stated, warning that financial constraints could deter talented graduates from entering these crucial areas of law.
What Comes Next?
The Chief Justice is not stopping at fee reductions. He has urged the College to consider forgiveness of past fees and future waivers for those who choose careers in the public service. He has also revealed that the Legal Profession Admission Board (LPAB)—with his backing—has commissioned independent research to survey the profession’s views on PLT reform. This study, conducted by Urbis, will explore ways to improve PLT quality and reduce costs for entry-level lawyers.
Bell’s remarks have been met with broad support across the profession, with Attorney-General Michael Daley also backing further action against excessive fees and hoarded reserves. “We both look forward to further action from the College of Law in this regard,” Bell said.
A Turning Point for Legal Education?
This intervention marks a significant turning point for legal education in Australia. For years, students have shouldered substantial costs with little transparency regarding where their money goes. Now, thanks to Chief Justice Bell’s powerful stance and mounting pressure from the legal community, reforms appear to be on the horizon.
For Peter O’Brien and other advocates for fairness in legal education, this revelation is not just about financial accountability—it is about ensuring equitable access to the profession. The legal system relies on a steady pipeline of talented and diverse young lawyers. If financial barriers remain unchecked, the profession risks losing bright minds to industries where entry is less financially prohibitive.
As the legal community awaits the results of the PLT review, one thing is clear: this debate is far from over. But for now, the exposure of the College of Law’s financial hoarding marks an essential first step toward long-overdue change.
