PRACTICAL LEGAL TRAINING
Congratulations on reaching the final stage of your academic journey and the first step
towards your admission to the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Please ensure you familiarise yourself with the information on our website
www.lawadmissions.vic.gov.au. The Admission Calender has a guideline of the dates you
need to adhere to at each stage of the admission process, and the Schedules that need to
be completed accurately.
Whether your admission proceeds swiftly and smoothly depends very largely on you. The
time to take stock of the admission requirements is now. Here are some hints:
1. Read the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2008 very carefully, insofar as they
apply to your case.
2. You are responsible for your own admission and for seeing to it that the Rules are
3. All documents must be lodged at the Board‘s office in person by you. (Applicants
from remote areas may request permission to lodge by post) The Board‘s office is
open Monday – Friday from 9.30am to 1.00pm and 2.30pm to 4.00pm.
4. Act Early.
5. Evidence that you have obtained the academic qualifications required under Rule
2.01 Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2008. You must arrange for an academic
transcript to be sent directly to the Board by the educational institution.
6. All applicants for admission are required to file an Affidavit of Disclosure. You are
encouraged to file an affidavit of disclosure 3-4 months prior to admission. See
Practice Direction No. 4 of 2009 (attached). Failure to do so may result in the delay
of your admission.
7. All applicants for admission must seek an Academic Conduct Report from each
educational institution (universities and accredited practical legal training providers)
where they have undertaken tertiary studies disclosing any misconduct while
undertaking those studies. You must arrange for these Reports to be sent directly to
the Board by the educational institution. The Report must be prepared within six
months before the date on which your Schedule 8 is made. See Practice Direction
No. 3 of 2009 (attached).
8. All applicants for admission must provide a Police Report by the Chief Commissioner
of Police. To prevent delays in your admission it is recommended that you make
the appropriate application to the Victoria Police 3 months prior to your intended
admission date. The Report must be prepared within 6 months before the date on
which your Schedule 8 is made. See Practice Direction No. 1 of 2008 (attached).
9. A certificate indicating that you have completed an approved practical legal
training course to the satisfaction of the approved practical legal training provider
must be sent directly to the Board by the practical legal training provider.
10. Final affidavits must be filed and admission fees must be paid by the due dates.
Failure to do so will result in your admission date being postponed to at least the
next admission date.
Here is a checklist to ensure you have all the necessary documents duly
completed in accordance with the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2008.
Notice of Intention to apply for Admission – Rule 5.01
Not less than one month before the appointed day of your admission you must lodge
with the Office of the Board of Examiners, a Notice of Intention to apply to be admitted in
the form set out in Schedule 5. You must also post a copy of the notice in the Supreme
Court as designated by the Board of Examiners.
You should now have filed your Affidavit of Disclosure.
Documents in Support of Admission – Rule 5.02
Not less than 21 days before the appointed day of Supreme Court sittings in which you
intend to apply for admission, you must lodge with the office of the Board of Examiners : -
(a) an affidavit in support of the application in the form set out in Schedule 8 (with
annexures as required): -
□ notation that an academic transcript demonstrating that you have
completed a course of study, including approved subjects at an academic
institution, in the manner required by these Rules (Rule 5.02(c)(i)) has been
sent direct to the Board of Examiners.
A certified copy of your law degree certificate should be annexed to Schedule
8 if the academic record sent to the Board of Examiners does not show
graduation. This does not mean a copy of an academic record. Applicants
can check with the Board office upon lodging their Notice of Intention,
whether their academic record shows proof of graduation.
□ notation that you have completed a course of practical legal training to the
satisfaction of the accredited PLT provider under these Rules (Rule
5.02)(c)(ii) and a certificate has been sent direct to the Board.
□ Original Police Record Check (Rule 5.02(c)(iv)).
□ Copy of Affidavit of Disclosure
□ notation that Academic Conduct Reports from the University and PLT
Provider (Rule 5.02(c)(v))) have been sent direct to the Board.
□ two certificates as to character in the form set out in Schedule 9 made by
an acceptable deponent. Notice No. 10 of 2008 sets out acceptable
(b) any other affidavits, certificates and information required by the Board.
All documents annexed to Schedule 8 must bear an exhibit note.
Please read Notice No. 1 of 2009 - Admission Ceremony (attached)
Practice Direction No. 4 of 2009
(This Practice Direction replaces Notice No. 11 of 2008)
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICANTS FOR ADMISSION TO PRACTICE
All applicants for admission are required to file an affidavit of disclosure with the Board.
When preparing this affidavit, the responsibility is upon each applicant to discharge his or
her duty of disclosure to the Board. The failure adequately to discharge this duty can have
serious consequences for an applicant. Applicants are encouraged to give careful
consideration to the duty upon them when making their disclosure. This Practice Direction
has been prepared to provide guidance regarding the extent of the duty of disclosure upon
applicants for admission.
It is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of all matters which must be disclosed. Each
application is considered by reference to the individual facts and circumstances. Stated in
general terms, the duty of disclosure extends to matters which reflect negatively on the
applicant‘s honesty, candour, respect for the law or ability to meet professional standards.
Applicants must provide a full account of any such matter in their affidavit of disclosure.
This should include a description of the applicant‘s conduct and should not be limited to
merely listing criminal charges or other consequences of the conduct.
Please note: wherever possible supporting documentation should be provided to
corroborate disclosures made.
The Duty of Disclosure
The Board of Examiners is charged with the responsibility of recommending to the Supreme
Court that an applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted. In Frugtniet v Board of
Examiners  VSC 140 Pagone, J stated:
It is for the applicant to satisfy the Board of Examiners, or subsequently the
court upon an appeal, that he or she is a fit and proper person. For an
applicant to establish fitness for admission to practice, it is necessary for
disclosure of all matters which bear upon the applicant's fitness for admission
In Re Legal Profession Act 2004; re OG  VSC 520, a lawyer, the Full Court
elaborated on the duty of disclosure, stating that the -
obligation of disclosure requires that an applicant be frank and honest with
the Board of Examiners, and so with the court, about anything which might
reflect adversely on the fitness and propriety of the applicant to be admitted
to practise. Nice questions sometimes arise as to how much that entails.
Increasingly, there is an expectation that even ancient peccadillos should not
be left out. In the past, perhaps, the obligation was not always seen as going
quite so far. But the need for honesty has never been in doubt. Admission to
practise is conditioned upon an applicant having a ‗complete realization ... of
his obligation of candour to the court in which he desire[s] to serve as an
agent of justice‘.
In Frugtniet v Board of Examiners  VSC 140, the need for thoroughness was stressed
by Pagone, J:
It was not an obligation merely to list convictions or charges, but was an obligation
to inform the decision maker of everything that could bear upon the judgment that
needed to be made about him and his character. His task was not to select or edit
from his life's experiences only some events that might be relevant to the question,
but to disclose every matter that might fairly assist in deciding whether the
applicant was a fit and proper person at the time of admission. Revealing more
than might strictly be necessary counts in favour of an applicant; especially where
the disclosure still carries embarrassment or discomfort. Revealing less than may be
necessary distorts the proper assessment of the applicant and may itself show an
inappropriate desire to distort by selection and screening of relevant facts.
Pagone, J went on to say:
It is not for the applicant to usurp the role of the decision maker (whether the
decision maker be the Board of Examiners or the Court) by deciding that the
charges or the facts which gave rise to them will not assist in deciding that person's
fitness to practice.
To understand and determine what matters ‗might reflect adversely on the fitness and
propriety of the applicant‘ it is necessary to consider what the requirements of a ‗fit and
proper person to be admitted‘ are. The observations of Pagone, J in Frugtniet v Board of
Examiners  VSC 140 are of assistance in this regard:
The requirement for admission to practice law that the applicant be a fit and
proper person, means that the applicant must have the personal qualities of
character which are necessary to discharge the important and grave responsibilities
of being a barrister and solicitor. A legal practitioner, upon being admitted to
practice, assumes duties to the courts, to fellow practitioners as well as to clients. At
the heart of all of those duties is a commitment to honesty and, in those
circumstances when it is required, to open candour and frankness, irrespective of self
interest or embarrassment. The entire administration of justice in any community
which is governed by law depends upon the honest working of legal practitioners
who can be relied upon to meet high standards of honesty and ethical behaviour. It
is the legal practitioner who is effectively the daily minister and executor in the
administration of justice when advising clients, acting for clients, certifying
documents, and making presentations to courts, governments, other professionals,
and so on. The level and extent of trust placed in what legal practitioners say or do
is necessarily high and the need for honesty is self evident and essential.
Criminal Charges and Convictions
All criminal charges and convictions must be disclosed together with a description of the
facts which gave rise to charges or convictions. Charges must be disclosed notwithstanding
that they were subsequently withdrawn or that the applicant was acquitted. It is not
sufficient merely to list charges and convictions. The Board is primarily concerned with the
applicant‘s conduct and it is therefore necessary for the applicant to explain in his or her
own words the circumstances which gave rise to the charges. Intervention orders,
apprehended violence orders and the like should be disclosed.
Offences resulting in an administrative penalty such as traffic or public transport offences
should be disclosed. A short description of the offence, penalty and confirmation of its
payment is generally adequate.
Ordinarily parking fines need not be disclosed however, circumstances in which a liability
has arisen in respect of unpaid fines should be disclosed. Library fines do not require
disclosure unless dishonesty was involved such as theft.
Traffic offences such as speeding, careless driving, driving an unregistered vehicle and drink
driving should be disclosed. For minor traffic offences it will normally be sufficient to disclose
the date, the offence, including the speed or breath alcohol content if relevant, the penalty
and confirmation of payment of any fine imposed.
Academic misconduct should be disclosed. Academic misconduct includes but is not limited
to plagiarism, impermissible collusion, cheating, and any other conduct whereby the
applicant has sought to obtain an impermissible academic advantage or other breach of
the educational institution‘s rules. The requirement for disclosure extends beyond matters
where a formal finding of misconduct has been made by an educational institution and
includes circumstances where a student has received a warning, marks have been
deducted, an allegation was made, or an investigation took place, even if the student was
Misconduct which occurred in a workplace, educational institution, volunteer position, club,
association or other circumstance should be disclosed. General misconduct includes, but is
not limited to offensive behaviour, property damage, sexual harassment, racial vilification
or breach of the rules of conduct of an organisation.
By way of illustration, in XY v Board of Examiners  VSC 250 Habersberger, J found
that an applicant was under a duty to disclose that a volunteer position had been
terminated as a result of making offensive remarks to a fellow worker and that she was
also required to disclose property damage she had caused at a meditation retreat,
notwithstanding that charges were not laid.
A false declaration made in a document or other manner should be disclosed
Social Security or Tax Offences
Tax offences should be disclosed, as too should social security overpayments and offences.
Charges relating to social security matters should be disclosed regardless of whether the
applicant was convicted.
An Applicant who has suffered from a mental impairment, including alcoholism or drug
dependence, should disclose this.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy
An applicant is required to disclose if he of she has been bankrupt or been a director or a
company which has become insolvent. Details of the bankruptcy/insolvency should be
provided and exhibit any relevant psychiatric or psychological reports.
The Suitability Matters of Section 1.2.6
Applicants are required to disclosure any suitability matter as defined by Section 1.2.6 Legal
Profession Act 2004.
The Board’s Determination of Fitness and Propriety for Admission
Applicants whose disclosures raise significant issues in respect of their fitness and propriety
for admission are required to appear before the Board of Examiners. Applicants will be
advised within 28 days of lodging their disclosure affidavit if they are required to appear.
At the hearing, the Board members will question the applicant and determine whether the
certificate will be issued. The certificate recommends to the Supreme Court that the
applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted to practice.
Regarding the assessment of fitness and propriety Pagone, J stated in Frugtniet v Board of
Examiners  VSC 140:
Whether the applicant is a fit and proper person for admission to practice is
a matter to be determined as at the time of admission. The existence of old
convictions, even for offences involving dishonesty, is not a necessary bar to
the admission to practice. The question for me is whether the applicant has
discharged the burden upon him to show that he is now a fit and proper
person for admission to practice.
Of particular concern to the Board in determining whether an applicant has discharged this
burden is the applicant‘s candour. If the applicant provides a full and frank account of the
conduct in question, is seen to take full responsibility for the conduct and demonstrates an
appropriate understanding of the significance of the conduct in relation to his or her fitness
and propriety, the Board will generally be satisfied that the applicant has learnt from his or
her mistake and is unlikely to repeat the conduct if admitted to practice. If, on the other
hand, the applicant is seen to distort or edit facts to cast him or herself in a better light, gloss
over embarrassing or awkward matters or otherwise fail to take responsibility for or
understand the conduct in question, the Board may form doubts about the applicant‘s
fitness adequately to discharge the duties of an Australian lawyer and officer of the court.
As Harper, J in Victorian Lawyers RPA Ltd v X  VSC 429 said:
One who is not capable of dealing appropriately with awkward facts of this
kind in one's own life …… cannot be entrusted appropriately to advise clients
who are similarly placed.
Regarding the relevance of candour in assessing fitness and propriety, the Full Court of the
Supreme Court of Western Australia in Skerritt v The Legal Practice Board of Western
Australia  WASCA 28 stated:
The weight to be attached to that lack of candour is a matter for the Board.
It would take into account a number of things. One is that practitioners owe
a duty of candour to the courts and to others, notwithstanding that at times
it may be personally embarrassing or inconvenient to perform that duty, so
that there may be cause for concern if an applicant has been less than
candid with the Board.
In refusing the appeal of a practitioner against a decision to remove his name from the roll
of barristers, Latham, CJ in Re Davis  HCA 53 said:
A man may be guilty of grave wrongdoing and may subsequently become a
man of good character. If the appellant had frankly disclosed to the Board
and to the two solicitors the fact of his conviction, that disclosure would have
greatly assisted him in an endeavour to show that he had retrieved his
character. But his failure to make such disclosure in itself, apart from the
conviction, excludes any possibility of holding that he was in 1946, or had
become in 1947, a man of good character.
Where an applicant has engaged in serious misconduct, the Board will generally require
proof that the applicant has led an ―honest and blameless life‖ for an appropriate period
prior to granting a certificate. As Gillard, J in Frugtniet v Board of Examiners  VSC
Of course it must be pointed out that the conduct of a person in his late
teens or early years of manhood may be put down to a variety of matters
which in later life should not preclude him from being a member of a
profession. But the Court would have to be satisfied that the person is a
reformed person who can be trusted. This would usually require proof of a
long period of blameless, honest life.
The Board will also require that an applicant has satisfied and discharged any penalty or
other consequence arising from the conduct prior to granting a certificate. This extends to
fines, payment of compensation, bonds, community based orders, suspended sentences and
Consequences of Inadequate Disclosure
The decision of the Full Court in Re Legal Profession Act 2004; re OG , a lawyer  VSC
520 is a graphic illustration of the possible consequences of inadequate disclosure. The case
concerned a lawyer who had been admitted to practice, signed the Bar Roll and was
practising as a barrister. In his letter of disclosure to the Board, OG disclosed that he had
received a zero mark for an assignment submitted within a business degree as a result of his
‗misunderstanding‘ and that ‗at no time was it suggested to be plagiarism or the like‘. OG
was not required to appear before the Board and was admitted to practice.
It subsequently came to light that the zero mark had been imposed because the university
believed the assignment had been prepared in collusion with another student. Upon being
informed that OG had made inadequate disclosure to the Board, the Supreme Court
initiated proceedings in relation to the admission of OG.
There was a full hearing which considered the adequacy of OG‘s disclosure.
The Full Court found that OG had ‗deliberately or recklessly misrepresented to the Board of
Examiners the circumstances in which he came to be awarded zero‘ and that his actions
‗were the antithesis of a ―realisation…of his obligation of candour to the court in which he
desire[s] to serve as an agent of justice‖‘.
The Full Court made orders that the order admitting OG to practice be revoked and that
he be struck off the roll.
Affidavit of Disclosure
[Please note that the Italicised wording below provide suggestions for the form of disclosure
of speeding fines, transport fines and drink driving offences. The affidavit should be set out
in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules].
In the Supreme Court of Victoria
To the Board of Examiners
I, [name in full] of [address], make oath and say/solemnly and sincerely affirm as follows:
1. I intend to be admitted on [insert date] as an Australian Lawyer and officer of the
Supreme Court of Victoria.
2. I have completed my academic qualifications [set out date and where you completed
3. I have undertaken/completed Practical Legal Training/ Articles/ Supervised Workplace
Training on [insert date].
4. I have read Practice Direction No. 4 of 2009 of the Board of Examiners entitled
Disclosure Requirements for Applicants for Admission to Practice. I am aware of and
understand my duty of disclosure to the Board of Examiners and make this statement
in my knowledge thereof.
5. I wish to disclose the following matter[s] to the Board:
(a) On [date] I received a traffic infringement notice at [place], Victoria for exceeding
the speed limit by approximately [number] km. per hour. The penalty for this offence
was $…, and this was subsequently paid.
(b) On [date] I appeared in the [place] Magistrates‘ Court to answer a charge of
travelling on public transport without a valid ticket. I was convicted and fined $… which
fine has been paid.
(c) On [date] I was apprehended on a charge of being a driver of a motor vehicle
with blood alcohol content exceeding ….%. My reading was …. I appeared in the
[place] Magistrates‘ Court on [date], and was convicted. A fine of $… was
imposed, and my licence was cancelled for a period of [number] months. The fine has
been paid and my licence has now been restored.
6. I request the Board does not regard any of these matters as rendering me unfit to be
admitted to practice as an Australian lawyer and as an officer of the Supreme Court of
SWORN at [town or city] )
In the State of ------------ )
This [day] of [month] of [year] )
Before me :---------------------------------------
[Signature and stamp of witness]
Practice Direction No. 3 of 2009
(This Practice Direction replaces Practice Note No. 2 of 2008)
ACADEMIC CONDUCT REPORTS
The Board requires all applicants for admission to seek a Report from each educational
institution where they have undertaken tertiary studies disclosing any misconduct on the
part of the applicant while undertaking those studies. The applicant must arrange for these
Reports to be sent directly to the Board by the educational institution.
The Report should disclose any incident of misconduct in respect of which the educational
institution holds a record. The Report must disclose academic and general misconduct and
should not be limited to misconduct, which has been found proven as a result of formal
Academic misconduct includes but is not limited to plagiarism, impermissible collusion,
cheating and any other conduct whereby the applicant has sought to obtain an
impermissible academic advantage or other breach of the educational institution‘s rules.
General misconduct includes but is not limited to offensive behaviour, property damage,
sexual harassment, racial vilification or other breach of the rules of conduct of the
Matters which a Report should disclose include circumstances where a student has received
a warning, marks have been deducted, an allegation was made, or an investigation took
place, even if the student was subsequently exonerated.
Matters in respect of which no record has been maintained by the educational institution
do not need to be disclosed in the Report, however applicants should note that their
individual duty of disclosure to the Board under r 5.02(1)(b) is not limited to matters which
appear on the Report.
Misconduct which occurred in relation to courses other than law must be disclosed in the
Report including where the study was not concurrent with applicant‘s study of law. A
Report of a particular educational institution is not expected to cover conduct during study
at any other educational institution during, for example, an exchange program or where a
student has transferred between institutions.
In such circumstances, the applicant should seek individual Reports from each relevant
Where a matter is disclosed by a Report, the following information should be provided:
1. the date of the incident;
2. a brief description of the incident;
3. the outcome of the investigation or disciplinary proceedings; and
4. any penalties imposed or disciplinary action taken.
Practice Direction No. 1 of 2008
POLICE RECORD CHECKS
All applicants for admission to practice in Victoria must provide a report to the Board of
Examiners by the Chief Commissioner of Police on the applicants‘ criminal record (if any).
For local applicants, Police Reports should be annexed to Schedule 8 and delivered to the
office of the Board of Examiners 21 days prior to the intended admission date.
To prevent delays in your admission it is recommended that applicants make the
appropriate application to the Victoria Police 3 Months prior to the intended admission
To obtain the Police Report:
1. Download the application form by accessing the Victorian Police Website
at www.police.vic.gov.au. Follow the link to 'Our Services' then follow the
link to 'Police Record Checks' and download the form called 'Application
form for National Police Record Check April 2009'. (VP Form 820B).
For further information, access the Information Release Policy for Individuals at the same
Notice No. 10 of 2008
The Rules provide for all applicants to provide two affidavits as to character in the form set
out in Schedule 9, each made by an acceptable deponent.
An acceptable deponent is described in s107A Evidence Act 1958 and has known the
applicant not less than 12 months or a person who is or was employed at a secondary or
tertiary teaching institution and by whom the applicant has been taught for not less than
the equivalent of one year of tertiary studies or one of the second final years of secondary
S107A is set out as follows:
(1) Any of the following persons may witness the signing of a statutory declaration—
a justice of the peace or a bail justice;
a public notary;
an Australian lawyer (within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act 2004);
a clerk to an Australian lawyer;
the prothonotary or a deputy prothonotary of the Supreme Court, the registrar
or a deputy registrar of the County Court, the principal registrar of the
Magistrates' Court or a registrar or deputy registrar of the Magistrates' Court;
the registrar of probates or an assistant registrar of probates;
the associate to a judge of the Supreme Court or of the County Court;
the secretary of a master of the Supreme Court or of the County Court;
a person registered as a patent attorney under Chapter 20 of the Patents Act
1990 of the Commonwealth;
a member of the police force;
the sheriff or a deputy sheriff;
a member or former member of either House of the Parliament of Victoria;
a member or former member of either House of the Parliament of the
a councillor of a municipality;
a senior officer of a Council as defined in the Local Government Act 1989;
a medical practitioner registered under the Health Professions Registration Act
a dentist registered under the Health Professions Registration Act 2005;
a veterinary practitioner;
a principal in the teaching service;
the manager of an authorised deposit-taking institution;
a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia or the
Australian Society of Accountants or the National Institute of Accountants;
the secretary of a building society;
a minister of religion authorised to celebrate marriages;
a person employed under Part 3 of the Public Administration Act 2004 with a
classification that is prescribed as a classification to which this section applies or
who holds office in a statutory authority with such a classification; and
a fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives (Victoria).
(2) Despite anything to the contrary in any Act, a person referred to in paragraph (c) or
(d) of subsection (1) is not prevented from witnessing the signing of a statutory
declaration only because he or she is—
(a) acting for any of the parties to the proceeding or matter in respect of
which the declaration is made; or
(b) a clerk to a person so acting.
(3) If the signing of a statutory declaration purports to have been witnessed by a person
referred to in subsection (1), all persons to whom that declaration comes must take
official notice of that declaration and of the qualifications of the person referred to
in that subsection to witness that signing.
Notice No 1 of 2009
(This Notice replaces Notice No. 5 of 2008)
Moving your Admission
Admission may be moved by an Australian Lawyer whose name is on the Roll of the
Supreme Court of Victoria. It is not necessary that a current practising certificate be held.
Admission may also be moved by an Australian Lawyer who is the holder of an Interstate
or Territory practising certificate or on the Roll of an Interstate or Territory Supreme Court.
Twenty-eight (28) days prior to an admission ceremony, a proposed mover must:
(i) If he/she holds a current interstate practising certificate, be required to send a
certified copy of that certificate to the Secretary of the Board of Examiners.
(ii) If he/she does not hold a current interstate practising certificate, be required to
obtain a certificate from the Supreme Court of the home jurisdiction verifying
standing before that Court.
When moving, the mover should step forward more or less to be level with the Bar
Table, so that the Bench has no difficulty distinguishing by whom it is being addressed.
Candidates must bring the following form of motion to the attention of the Counsel
moving the admission:
If the Court pleases,
"I appear to move that (full name) be admitted to the legal
profession as an Australian Lawyer and as an officer of this
Honourable Court and I so move on the certificate and
recommendation of the Board of Examiners".
The Court prefers that on any one occasion no more than (say) three or four admissions be
moved by the same practitioner.
Oath or Affirmation
Applicants should have already indicated their intention to swear the oath or make the
affirmation on the Notice of Intention previously filed with the Board of Examiners. It is not
possible for applicants to change their selection on the day of admission.
Applicants may take the oath of office (e.g. swear on the Bible) or make prior
arrangements with the Registrar of the Board of Examiners to take the oath in accordance
with some other religious custom. It is noted that only bibles available in the Court should
Applicant‘s clothing should be appropriate to the formality of a Supreme Court hearing.
Therefore, professional attire is required. Male applicants must wear a jacket and tie.
Female applicants must wear a jacket.
Practitioners moving admissions must be appropriately robed in wig, gown, bar jacket and
The ceremony is held in the Banco Court (Court 1) of the Supreme Court Building, 210
William Street, Melbourne.
Applicants and their guests must arrive at the entrance to the courtroom no later than
thirty minutes before the time fixed for the admission ceremony.
Applicants will be met at the door of the courtroom by a judge‘s associate. Applicants must
clearly identify themselves to the Judge‘s Associate upon entering the Court.
The taking of photographs within the Supreme Court complex and in the courtroom is
The ceremony will be web cast on the Supreme Court website and available for viewing
shortly after the ceremony (www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au).
Running Order of the Ceremony
Three Judges of the Supreme Court will come onto the Bench and the court will be opened.
During this time, all persons in court stand and bow when the Judges bow.
The associate will then read the first applicant‘s name. Counsel moving the applicant‘s
admission will step forward to the bar table and read the form of motion (see above). The
presiding judge will ask if the applicant is in Court. The applicant will then stand, bow to
the bench and resume their seat.
When this process has been completed for all applicants, the associate will read out the
names of all the applicants taking the oath. As an applicant‘s name is called, they are to
stand and remain standing. The associate then recites the oath and invites the applicants
to respond. Each applicant repeats in turn, ―I swear by almighty God to do so‖.
The associate then reads out the names of all the applicants making an affirmation. As an
applicant‘s name is called, they are to stand and remain standing. The associate then
recites the affirmation and invites the applicants to respond. Each applicant repeats in
turn, ―I do so declare and affirm‖.
After the Oaths and Affirmations are complete, the presiding judge will give a short
address. The Court will then be adjourned and the judges will leave the bench.
Applicants will be ushered to the anteroom where they will sign the Roll. The Prothonotary
will sign and seal the Order of Admission and hand it to the applicant.
Applicants must not leave the court until they have signed the Roll and the Order of
Admission is returned to them. Applicants are not duly admitted until the process outlined
in this paragraph is completed.
If you have any questions please speak to a staff member at the Board‘s office.