The Hellenic Australian Lawyers Association (HAL) Annual General Meeting (AGM) on Friday, 27 February 2026 was dominated by discussion surrounding a recent National Committee interpretation of Rule 8 of the Association’s membership rules. Controversy which saw the membership disqualification of the South Australia State Chair one day before election nominations.
The AGM opened positively, with President, Joseph Tsalanidis, reporting a surplus of approximately $157,000 for the 2025 financial year. This success was largely due to the Global Summit of Hellenic Lawyers, placing the Association in what was described as a sound financial position.
However, during General Business, attention turned sharply to the Committee’s December interpretation of Rule 8 and how it effects membership eligibility.
Unseen Consequences and Broad Exclusions
The uncertainty centred on Rule 8 of HAL’s Constitution and how it restricts full (‘ordinary’) membership rights to individuals who are “admitted to practice law in an Australian jurisdiction.” The rule, however, is ambiguous in that it lacks clarity on whether membership broadly refers to the formal admission to the legal profession, or whether it is narrowly defined as holding of a current practising certificate.
During the discussion, serious concerns were raised about the effect this decision had on the scope of HAL’s membership base.
Mr Tsalanidis confirmed at the AGM that the HAL Committee obtained conflicting pieces of legal advice on the rule before adopting its interpretation, and that the Committee chose to adopt the narrow interpretation, which limits full membership to members of the legal profession who are admitted to practise in Australia and hold a current practising certificate.
As a result of the interpretation, lawyers practising under statutory authority (i.e. an Act of Parliament), who are not required to and do not hold practising certificates, do not have full member rights, including voting rights or ability to hold office in the Association. This category may include Crown Solicitors and DPP prosecutors who regularly appear in court, and esteemed Parliamentary staff and Directors of Law firms who despite being admitted do not hold practising certificates.
‘I’ve been a member since the beginning’
A government lawyer from Western Australia was astonished by these implications, saying she had been a member of HAL “since the get go” and had only now realised that, under the adopted interpretation, she may technically never have been eligible as a full member.
“I don’t think it was ever the intent to exclude government lawyers,” she said.
Mr Tsalanidis accepted that the rules, on one reading, may operate in a narrow and exclusionary way.
He acknowledged that “the last thing [we want], as an association of busy practitioners, is to adopt any construction that might be said to be narrow, restrictive, [or] exclusionary,” but maintained that his Committee had chosen to adopt what it considered to be the correct interpretation.
Refund and Overpayment Concerns
The discussion then moved to the financial implications of the interpretation.
A member asked whether the Committee had considered reimbursing lawyers who paid the full membership fee of $50 membership, instead of the $20 associate membership fee, if they are now regarded as associate members under the Committee’s revised interpretation.
Mr Tsalanidis confirmed that the issue of reimbursement is subject to discussion with the Treasurer and the passing of a resolution by his Committee.
Andrew Panna KC, the Victorian Chapter Chair and Member of the Committee, supported the suggestion saying that the Committee should “tell all those [members] what the situation is… and if they want to have a refund, of course I think as a Committee we should refund if they want it…”
Calls for a broader interpretation
Considering these issues, and the acknowledgments by some on the Committee that the matter requires attention, one member proposed what he described as a more efficient solution.
Given that conflicting legal advice had been obtained, he suggested the Committee could decide to accept a more inclusive/broader interpretation of Rule 8, which would avoid unintended exclusionary consequences and the administrative burden of a formal constitutional amendment.
Mr Panna KC emphasised that this would be an “easy” solution, provided that the Committee “would consider that the course that we took was not correct”.
He added that he held a “very strong view” on the rule’s interpretation, arguing it would require the Committee to acknowledge that “we got it all wrong,” while also indicating that the rule “has to be changed and [to] make it clear.”
HAL in 2026
Looking ahead to 2026, HAL members have told The Greek Herald that the membership eligibility rules and their practical consequences must be addressed for the benefit of the organisation.
Questions have also been raised as to how all existing members impacted by the adoption of the new rule will be handled.
Members stressed that greater transparency by the Committee is important, particularly as HAL continues to run events and signals organising another Global Summit of Hellenic Lawyers in 2027.
