Our goal is to help people in the best way possible. this is a basic principle in every case and cause for success. contact us today for a free consultation.
Practice Areas
Newsletter
Sign up to our newsletter
Compliance Hub
Professional standards are the accepted benchmarks of competence, care, and conduct that members of a given profession are required to meet when providing services to clients. They define what a reasonably skilled and careful professional — a solicitor, doctor, accountant, engineer, or financial adviser — would do in a given situation. When a professional’s conduct falls meaningfully short of that benchmark and causes you loss, you may have grounds for a negligence claim.
Professional negligence is not just about things going wrong. Things go wrong in every profession — sometimes without anyone being at fault. The law requires more than a bad outcome before it will hold a professional liable.
To succeed in a professional negligence claim, you generally need to establish three things:
It is that second element — the breach — where professional standards become the critical reference point. Courts don’t assess a professional’s conduct against perfection. They assess it against what a competent, careful professional in the same position, with the same information, would reasonably have done. The gap between that benchmark and what actually happened is where a negligence claim is built.
For more on these foundational concepts, see our pages on duty of care and breach of duty.
Professional standards don’t come from a single source. They are set, maintained, and enforced by a combination of legislation, regulatory bodies, professional associations, and — ultimately — the courts themselves.
Legal profession
Regulated by state law societies and bar associations — Law Society of NSW, Law Institute of Victoria, Queensland Law Society, and equivalents. The Legal Profession Uniform Law (LPUL) governs conduct in NSW and VIC. State Legal Services Commissioners handle complaints.
Medical profession
Regulated nationally by AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the Medical Board of Australia. AHPRA sets registration standards, codes of conduct, and CPD requirements directly relevant in medical negligence claims.
Accountants
CPA Australia and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (CA ANZ) maintain professional and ethical standards for members. Tax practitioners have specific obligations under the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth) and the Tax Practitioners Board’s Code of Professional Conduct.
Financial advisers
ASIC regulates financial services providers under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Financial advisers are subject to a statutory best interests duty, suitability obligations, and disclosure requirements set out in ASIC’s Regulatory Guide 175.
Engineers
Engineers Australia maintains professional standards for members. State-based registration schemes and building legislation impose additional obligations. Compliance with relevant Australian Standards is often central to expert evidence in engineering negligence claims.
Architects
The Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) sets national standards for architectural education and practice. State-based architects registration boards govern conduct obligations that inform the standard applied in negligence cases.
Many of these bodies publish codes of conduct, ethics rules, and practice standards. While those documents are not the final word on what the law requires, courts treat them as highly relevant evidence of the standard expected — and departures from them can be powerful indicators of a breach.
This is often the most contested part of a professional negligence claim, and it is worth understanding how it works.
In most Australian states, the Civil Liability Acts include what is known as the peer professional opinion provision. Under this provision, a professional is not negligent simply because another professional would have done things differently — provided their conduct was widely accepted by a responsible body of peers in that field as competent professional practice. In plain terms: if a doctor makes a clinical decision that many other doctors would also have made, that alone may not establish negligence.
But there is an important limit to this. The High Court of Australia made clear in the landmark case Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 that a body of professional opinion does not automatically define the required standard. Courts are not bound to accept that because a practice is common, it is therefore legally adequate. Where professional practice fails to take reasonable care of a patient’s or client’s interests, the court retains the authority to find negligence even if peers might have done the same thing.
Practical example: If a financial adviser recommended an investment product that no reasonable adviser with access to your financial circumstances would have considered appropriate, the gap between what they did and what the standard required is where your claim lives. The peer professional opinion defence would not assist an adviser whose conduct was simply indefensible.
Expert evidence plays a central role: parties typically call expert witnesses from the relevant profession to give evidence about what the standard required in the circumstances, and whether the defendant’s conduct met it. See our page on Rogers v Whitaker for a detailed explanation of that decision and its ongoing significance.
Solicitors are held to a high standard of competence and care in Australia. Their obligations are not just ethical — they are legal. Under the Legal Profession Uniform Law and the equivalent legislation in each state, solicitors must act in the best interests of their clients, avoid conflicts of interest, and exercise the skill expected of a competent legal practitioner. Common failures that ground a solicitor negligence claim include missing limitation periods, giving incorrect legal advice, failing to advise on a key risk, mishandling settlement negotiations, or improperly executing a transaction. See our solicitor negligence page for more detail.
The standard expected of medical practitioners is the standard of a reasonably skilled professional in the same speciality. Following Rogers v Whitaker, medical practitioners also have a duty to disclose material risks — risks that a reasonable patient in the claimant’s position would want to know — even where disclosure was not routine practice among peers. Claims commonly arise from misdiagnosis, delayed diagnosis, surgical errors, failure to refer, and failure to warn. See our medical negligence page for further information.
Accountants owe their clients a duty to exercise the skill and care of a reasonably competent accounting professional. The Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth) imposes specific obligations on registered tax agents, including duties of care, competence, and honesty. Failures in tax advice, audit services, financial reporting, or business structuring advice can ground a claim where loss flows from conduct that fell below the required standard. See our accountant negligence page.
Financial advisers operating under an Australian Financial Services Licence are subject to some of the most detailed professional obligations in the country. The best interests duty under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) requires advisers to prioritise their clients’ interests and recommend products appropriate for the client’s circumstances, goals, and risk profile. Where an adviser recommended a product to generate a commission, failed to disclose a conflict, or ignored a client’s instructions, there may be a strong foundation for a claim. See our financial adviser negligence page.
Engineers must exercise the skill and care expected of a competent professional in their discipline. Compliance with relevant Australian Standards is a baseline — but the standard extends beyond mere technical compliance. Architects face similar obligations, with the added dimension of compliance with state building legislation and planning requirements. Where an engineer’s or architect’s design, certification, or advice falls below what a competent professional would have provided, and damage results, a claim may follow.
This is an area that trips up many people researching professional negligence, and it deserves clear treatment.
In each Australian state, a Professional Standards Act (or equivalent legislation) enables approved professional associations to operate liability schemes that can limit the amount of compensation a professional is required to pay — even if they are found liable. These schemes are gazetted in the Government Gazette and apply only to members of participating associations who have met certain risk management requirements.
If a scheme applies, it may cap the professional’s liability at a figure below your actual loss. This does not mean your claim fails — it means recovery may be limited in certain circumstances. There are important exceptions: caps cannot apply to conduct involving fraud or dishonesty. And caps do not apply to all professional associations or all types of claims.
Understanding whether a liability cap applies to your situation — and how to maximise recovery within it — is one of the reasons specialist legal advice matters from the start. The relevant legislation includes the Professional Standards Act 1994 (NSW), the Professional Standards Act 2003 (VIC), and equivalent legislation in Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT, and the Northern Territory.
For more detail on how these Acts apply to claims, see our pages on the Civil Liability Act and professional negligence and limitation periods for professional negligence claims.
Professional negligence claims are subject to limitation periods — strict time limits after which your right to claim is permanently lost. In most Australian states, the general rule is that a claim must be commenced within three years of the date you became aware — or ought reasonably to have become aware — of the negligence that caused your loss. But the applicable period varies by state and by the nature of your claim. In some states, a longer longstop period also applies.
If you are unsure whether your limitation period is still open, please do not wait. Contact our team for a free assessment as soon as possible — the sooner you act, the more options you have.
If you believe a professional has let you down — whether it’s a solicitor who cost you your case, a doctor whose misdiagnosis caused lasting harm, or a financial adviser whose advice devastated your savings — the first step is understanding whether what happened to you meets the legal threshold for a claim.
That assessment is not always straightforward. It typically requires a lawyer experienced in professional negligence to review what happened, identify the applicable standard, and form a view on whether the professional’s conduct fell short of it. It may also require input from an expert in the relevant field.
What we can tell you is this: you do not have to work it out on your own, and getting an initial assessment costs you nothing.
Or use our Claim Eligibility Checker to get a quick sense of your position.
It means their conduct did not meet the level of skill, care, and competence that a reasonably qualified professional in their field would have exercised in the same circumstances. Courts assess this objectively — not against perfection, and not against the worst in the field, but against a competent practitioner doing their job properly. Where the gap between that standard and what actually happened is significant, and loss results, there may be a claim.
Not necessarily. While the peer professional opinion provisions in the Civil Liability Acts can assist a defendant who shows their conduct was widely accepted as competent, the High Court in Rogers v Whitaker made clear that courts are not bound by what peers would have done. If a common professional practice is itself unreasonable or fails to meet the duty of care owed to the client, a court can still find negligence.
It can, in certain circumstances. If the professional is a member of an approved liability scheme under the relevant state Professional Standards Act, their liability may be capped at a specified amount. However, caps do not apply in cases of fraud or dishonesty, and not all professionals are covered by a scheme. A specialist professional negligence lawyer can advise you on whether a cap applies to your situation and what it means for your potential recovery.
Typically through a combination of expert evidence, professional codes and guidelines, relevant legislation, and case law. Expert witnesses from the relevant profession give evidence about what a competent practitioner in the defendant’s position would have done. Courts consider that evidence alongside the applicable legislative framework and any binding or persuasive case authority. The court — not the profession — has the final say on whether the standard was met.
Our goal is to help people in the best way possible. this is a basic principle in every case and cause for success. contact us today for a free consultation.
Sign up to our newsletter