Bill 16 amends the Legal Profession Act, 2017 to (1) expressly give an investigator the discretion to dismiss a complaint after investigating, and (2) add a statutory immunity that prevents actions for damages against any person acting on behalf of the Law Society for acts or omissions done in good faith while performing or intending to perform duties or exercising powers under the Act or the Society’s rules.
The changes are narrow in text but consequential in practice: they reduce the risk that individual investigators, committee members, counsel or volunteers face damage claims tied to regulatory activity, and they shift how complainants and respondents will approach regulatory and civil remedies. Compliance officers and Law Society administrators should expect changes to complaint handling practice, insurer relationships, and potential litigation strategies by complainants seeking redress outside the regulatory scheme.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces paragraph 64(a) to state that an investigator may dismiss a complaint and inserts section 171.01, which bars any action or legal proceeding for damages against a person acting on behalf of the Law Society for anything they do or omit in good faith while performing or intending to perform duties or exercising powers under the Act or the rules.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are Law Society investigators, committee members, in-house counsel and volunteers who act on the Society’s behalf; regulated lawyers who are the subject of complaints; complainants seeking damages; and insurers and legal advisers who handle Law Society litigation and defence costs.
Why It Matters
By lowering personal litigation risk for individuals acting under the Society’s authority, the bill could change incentives inside the regulator — encouraging decisive action but also raising accountability questions for complainants and the public. It also changes the calculus for civil claims tied to regulatory conduct, potentially reducing damage awards against individuals while leaving other remedies (injunctions, judicial review) available.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill does two discrete things that interact in practice. First, it clarifies that investigators have the power to dismiss complaints after conducting an investigation.
That wording grants explicit discretion: an investigator need not keep a matter alive if, after examining the facts, they conclude it does not meet the Society’s enforcement threshold or continued investigation is not warranted.
Second, the bill creates a statutory immunity for "a person acting on behalf of the Society" so long as that person acts in good faith while performing or intending to perform duties or exercising powers under the Act or the Society’s rules. The immunity covers both acts and omissions and extends to situations where a person was intending to perform a function (not only completed acts).Taken together, these changes protect individuals who carry out regulatory processes from being sued for damages in connection with those regulatory activities.
Practically, investigators and committee members will face lower personal litigation risk, which may affect how thoroughly and how quickly the Society resolves complaints. Complainants who view a dismissal or investigative decision as harmful still retain routes outside damages claims — for example, asking a court for judicial review or seeking injunctive relief — but pursuing damages against an individual involved in the regulatory process becomes legally barred under the new text.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 64(a) is rewritten to say an investigator "may dismiss the complaint," explicitly authorizing dismissal after investigation.
Section 171.01 bars any action or legal proceeding for damages against a "person acting on behalf of the Society" for acts or omissions done in good faith under the Act or the rules.
The immunity covers both performing and intending to perform duties or powers, and it applies equally to acts and omissions.
The statutory immunity targets "persons acting on behalf of the Society," a broad category that can include investigators, committee members, volunteers and outside counsel retained by the Society.
The bar is limited to damages claims; the provision does not itself eliminate non‑damages remedies such as judicial review or injunctive relief (the bill is silent on those remedies).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Investigator discretion to dismiss complaints
This substitution to paragraph 64(a) removes ambiguity by giving investigators an explicit statutory power to dismiss a complaint once they have investigated. Practically, that means the investigator — not a discipline committee or automatic procedural stage — can decide to close a matter. The provision does not prescribe criteria, timelines, or publication requirements, so the Society will need internal policy or practice directions to prevent inconsistent or opaque dismissals and to define what counts as a sufficient investigation.
Limited immunity for persons acting on behalf of the Society
Section 171.01 creates a statutory shield against damages suits for any person acting on the Society’s behalf when they act or omit to act, in good faith, while performing or intending to perform duties or exercising powers under the Act or rules. The clause’s language is broad: it protects conduct and non‑conduct and reaches intentions as well as completed acts. That breadth reduces personal exposure for those involved in regulation but leaves open important questions about who qualifies as "acting on behalf of the Society," how "good faith" will be proved, and whether litigation may simply shift from individuals to the Society entity itself.
Purpose and practical limits
The explanatory note frames the changes as giving investigators discretion and preventing damages proceedings against people acting for the Society. The statutory text, however, attaches those protections to a good-faith standard and to actions under the Act or rules, which limits the immunity to regulatory functions. Nothing in the text expressly alters other accountability mechanisms (professional discipline, public reporting, judicial review), but the interplay between those mechanisms and the new immunity will be defined in practice and, if contested, by courts.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Law Society investigators and staff — They gain statutory protection from personal damages claims for decisions made while carrying out investigations or regulatory duties, lowering litigation risk and personal exposure.
- Committee members and volunteers who act for the Society — The immunity reduces the deterrent effect of potential personal lawsuits and may encourage participation in regulatory governance.
- The Law Society as an institution — Indirectly benefits through reduced defence costs and fewer personal-liability claims that can complicate internal decision-making and create reputational risk.
- Outside counsel and retained experts working for the Society — They receive clearer protection when advising or representing the Society during disciplinary or investigative processes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Complainants and individuals harmed by regulator conduct — They face a narrower path to recover damages against individuals involved in regulatory action, potentially reducing remedies available after an adverse investigative decision.
- Members of the public seeking accountability — The change shifts potential targets for damages claims away from individuals to the Society or to non‑damages remedies, which may be less accessible or slower.
- Insurers and defence counsel for the Society — While overall litigation risk against individuals may fall, insurers must reassess coverage and premium structures and may see claims shift to the Society’s entity-level coverage.
- Small firms and regulated lawyers facing complaints — If investigatory dismissals become more common or less transparent, respondents may find less clarity about the basis for decisions and fewer opportunities to have contested factual matters fully tested.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between protecting individuals so they can carry out robust, decisive regulatory action without fear of personal damages claims and preserving meaningful accountability and remedies for people harmed by negligent or bad‑faith regulatory conduct; the bill reduces personal legal risk but makes it harder for complainants to use damages claims to deter or remedy regulatory failings.
The bill solves a clear pain point — personal exposure for regulators — but raises several implementation and legal questions. "Good faith" is the statutory hinge for immunity, yet courts routinely parse that concept; proving or disproving good faith can produce costly litigation of its own. Because the immunity extends to "intending to perform" duties, it may protect preparatory steps or discretionary decisions made in anticipation of regulatory action, creating grey zones about what conduct is insulated.
Operationally, investigator discretion to dismiss complaints without statutory criteria risks inconsistent outcomes and reduced transparency unless the Society creates clear policies on investigative scope, standards for dismissal, reasons disclosure, and appeal or review routes. The immunity targets persons, not the Society as an entity — plaintiffs may therefore shift tactics by suing the Society itself or seeking non‑damages judicial remedies.
That potential for forum-shifting could change litigation patterns rather than eliminate disputes. Finally, the bill is silent on how this immunity interacts with insurance contracts, indemnification policies, and the Society’s own liability exposure; those financial and governance arrangements will need review.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.