Earlier this year, a law firm in Melbourne was ordered to pay over $50,000 for a range of exploitative labour practices relating to the excess work hours required of a junior lawyer. While the public furore around the case was noteworthy, the issues raised by it were not exactly novel in the legal profession.
It feels timely, therefore, to consider the law regulating work hours in Australia. This article will set out the context, with a focus on the legal profession, before setting out the legislative framework. It will then consider two recent instructive cases, including the law firm enforcement decision, before offering some concluding remarks.
In Australia and overseas, the legal industry is known for its high pressure environment and a long history of a culture of significant working hours. For some time, that culture has been scrutinised for its perpetuation of unhealthy workplace cultures. Across 2018 and 2019, workplace regulators in NSW and Victoria launched several investigations into top tier law firms, in part sparked by excessive work hours performed during the banking royal commission. These investigations brought scrutiny to a culture of excessive workloads within the legal profession and the toll it takes on employee wellbeing.[1]
At the time, the billable hours system came under fire prompting some firms to explore alternative arrangements. In Victoria, the government established a new legal procurement policy requiring firms participating in the government legal services panel to disclose safety breaches and submit their strategies pertaining to work life balance for lawyers.[2]
Recent research by the Australian National University and the University of Melbourne has found that 39 percent of participants believed working within the legal sector had a ‘negative’ or ‘extremely negative’ impact on their wellbeing. These participants stated that ‘significant challenges to wellbeing are created by the ‘business model’ in some parts of the legal profession, particularly in respect of designed or implicitly sanctioned structures, norms and behaviours that support excessive workloads and unreasonable working hours’.[3] The research suggested that these workplace issues extend well beyond commercial law firms and pervade ‘government, legal aid and corporate in house settings’.[4]
Another recent research project, the Law Forward Legal Industry Satisfaction Survey, found that nearly 70 percent of lawyers experience burnout and 36 percent of lawyers reported to have worked more than 45 hours a week.[5] Somewhat ironically, this data came at a time of increasingly-robust workplace protections in relation to over work – to which we will now turn.
Section 62 of the Fair Work Act establishes that an employer must not request nor require an employee to work more than 38 hours in a week. Critically, though, there is a caveat: unless the additional hours are reasonable.
What is reasonable? In determining that, section 62(3) of the Fair Work Act outlines a range of factors to be considered. These include:
(a) any risk to employee health and safety from working the additional hours;
(b) the employee’s personal circumstances, including family responsibilities;
(c) the needs of the workplace or enterprise in which the employee is employed;
(d) whether the employee is entitled to receive overtime payments, penalty rates or other compensation for, or a level of remuneration that reflects an expectation of, working additional hours;
(e) any notice given by the employer of any request or requirement to work the additional hours;
(f) any notice given by the employee of his or her intention to refuse to work the additional hours;
(g) the usual patterns of work in the industry, or the part of an industry, in which the employee works;
(h) the nature of the employee’s role, and the employee’s level of responsibility;
(i) whether the additional hours are in accordance with averaging terms included under section 63 in a modern award or enterprise agreement that applies to the employee, or with an averaging arrangement agreed to by the employer and employee under section 64;
(j) any other relevant matter.
Accordingly, asking an employee to work 42 hours a week during a busy period may not be unreasonable. Asking an employee to work 100 hours a week, every week, for months on end, probably would be. As always, the uncertainty is in the middle of that spectrum from reasonable to unreasonable additional hours.
As maximum weekly hours form part of the National Employment Standards, this protection applies to all employees in the national workplace system in Australia, and cannot be excluded by contract, award or enterprise agreement.
In addition to obligations under the Fair Work Act, work health and safety laws may be relevant to overwork. The Work Health and Safety Amendment (Managing Psychosocial Risk and Other Measures) Regulation 2022 requires employers to proactively identify and control psychosocial risks that arise in the workplace. These regulations impose a positive duty to eliminate psychosocial hazards in the workplace, so far as is reasonably practicable.
Similarly, section 55D of the ACT Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 at section 55D establishes that a person conducting a business or undertaking must implement control measures to;
Although case law on these legislative reforms remains limited, it is likely that excessive work hours and excessive job demands will present as a hazard that could compromise the psychosocial wellbeing of an employee. A failure to appropriately manage this hazard could lead to investigation and enforcement proceedings by the relevant regulators.
Within the legal profession, there may also be applicable industrial instruments. Lawyers employed by community legal centres will be covered by the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award (unless excluded by any applicable enterprise agreement). Law clerks, law graduates and clerical and administrative employees will be covered by the Legal Services Award. Under both awards, the ordinary hours of work are to average 38 hours per week; directions to work unreasonable additional hours might therefore lead to a dispute under the award, in addition to questions of compliance with s 62 of the Fair Work Act.
Notably, the Legal Services Award contains annualised salary provisions, which requires employers to advise the employee in writing and keep a record of the outer limit of ordinary hours that would normally attract a penalty and the outer limit of overtime hours which the employee may be required to work where an annualised wage is paid.
The recently-enacted right to disconnect provisions under the Fair Work Act may also have relevance, where employer directions to work take place out of hours. Under the new scheme, employees have a right to ignore out-of-hours contact except where doing so is unreasonable – and the Fair Work Commission has dispute resolution jurisdiction to resolve disputes over whether such contract is reasonable. Finally, demanding performance significantly beyond any relevant terms in an employment agreement may have contractual consequences (although, given the comprehensive legislative framework, this is less likely to be central to any potential claim).
The high-profile recent case involving a Melbourne law firm, Readdie v People Shop Pty Ltd[6] demonstrates an extreme example. Ms Readdie was employed for just three weeks. During this period, she was required to work on average over 60 hours a week, subjected to 12 to 18-hour days and instructed to watch a movie at 1am on a Sunday (The Miracle, about the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team – with no apparent work relevance). Among other claims, Ms Readdie asserted that these hours were unreasonable and in accordance with section 62 of the Fair Work Act sought that penalties be imposed for contravention of the Act.
Magistrate Fawcett considered the following key principles.[7] Firstly, that s 62(1) ‘imposes a limit [38 hours in a week] on the number of hours an employee may be asked or required to work’. Secondly, ‘the effect of s 62(1) is that requiring or requesting a full-time employee to work in excess of 38 hours a week is prima facie unreasonable’. Thirdly, ‘what is reasonable is necessarily assessed on a case-by case basis, by reference to the employee’s circumstances and the employer’s business in accordance with the terms of s 62(3)’.
In reference to the employees’ circumstances, Magistrate Fawcett considered a number of factors including the risk to Ms Readdie’s health and safety. Magistrate Fawcett found that the hours Ms Readdie worked contributed to an exacerbation of her pre-existing medical condition. Further, Ms Readdie’s personal circumstances were considered, including her mother’s serious illness and death of her former partner. The unreasonable hours impeded Ms Readdie’s capacity to obtain a reasonable amount of sleep and caused her to be isolated, both physically and in her capacity to communicate, from her family.
Magistrate Fawcett also noted the vulnerability of Ms Readdie, in her first solicitor role:
[40] The circumstances in which the conduct took place included that Ms Readdie’s employment with People Shop was her first job as a lawyer, meaning she had no experience of how law firms ordinarily operate by which to judge the requirements on her. Further, they included that Ms Readdie was rarely provided with notice of the hours she would be required to work, and was often not aware what time she would start or how long she would be required to work on any given day.”
Ultimately the court established that ‘the effect of the contravention on Ms Readdie was significant’ and that the firm’s conduct was ‘so repugnant that it constituted a repudiatory breach of contract’. Magistrate Fawcett held that:
[136] The sheer number of hours [Ms Readdie] was required to work are, in my view, self-evidently excessive. The times of the day, night and weekends she was required to work were arbitrary and unusual. … The requirement that she work excessive hours whilst staying in a hotel room with Mr Kuksal and Ms Xu deprived her of any form of personal autonomy or agency without any rational justification apparent. Whilst performing the additional hours, Ms Readdie’s time was monopolised by People Shop. …. Mr Kuksal’s requirement that Ms Readdie watch the Ice Hockey movie, unrelated to her work, at around 1am on a Sunday morning after having already worked approximately 14 hours on a Saturday, and maintain communication with him whilst doing so, was on any view unreasonable.
While the facts of this case are certainly extreme, the reasoning of Magistrate Fawcett is highly relevant. It demonstrates the strong approach the courts will take to ensure employers protect the health and safety of employees and the careful and comprehensive assessment of individual circumstances that will be undertaken. It serves as a timely reminder to employers to ensure that the wellbeing of their employees is considered as part of any request for additional hours to be worked.
Chin v Visual Thing Australia Pty Ltd, a 2024 case,[8] offers another instructive case study. In this instance, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia similarly found that Ms Chin’s employer, Visual Thing Australia, had contravened their obligation under section 62 of the Fair Work Act. Ms Chin was a creative retouching specialist who worked for Visual Thing Australia. While the case did not involve the legal industry, it underscores that the profession is far from alone in relation to excessive work hours.
In determining whether the additional hours worked by Ms Chin were reasonable, the Court acknowledged that Visual Thing Australia operated in a fast-paced industry subject to external deadlines resulting in a usual pattern of working 40-hours per week. However, on the basis of her employment, it was unlikely that there was anything requiring her to permanently work more than 38 hours per week. This was determined by the nature of her role. In her role, Ms Chin was not subject to a position of seniority, nor did she have managerial or supervisory responsibilities, a point of relevance for junior lawyers within law firms.
Of particular salience was the fact that Ms Chin had been required to work two hours of overtime per week for the entirety of her employment. Ms Chin’s contract stipulated that she was to work 40 hours per week without any additional payment for overtime, despite being covered by an industry award entitling her to overtime pay. The Court accepted that these two hours of overtime in a week were not in themselves unreasonable. However, it found that the frequency, regularity and length of time over which this overtime was worked, resulted in such overtime becoming unreasonable, and therefore Visual Thing Australia was found to be in breach of s 62.
Whilst extensive legislative reform to protect the health and wellbeing of employers and limit excessive work hours has been enacted, instances of excessive work hours continue to arise – including in the legal profession. Recent research has found significant challenges faced by lawyers in relation to work life balance. It is incumbent on all legal practices to take steps to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act and work health and safety obligations in not requiring unreasonable additional hours from staff.
[1] Naaman Zhou, ‘Young lawyers push back against culture of overwork in top law firms’, Guardian Australia (online, 3 December 2018) <https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/dec/03/young-lawyers-push-back-against-culture-of-overwork-in-top-law-firms>.
[2] David Marin-Guzman and Hannah Wootton, ‘Procurement rules target law firms that overwork staff’, Guardian Australia (online, 5 February 2020) <https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/procurement-rules-target-law-firms-that-overwork-staff-20200204-p53xkf>.
[3] Vivien Holmes, Julian Webb, Stephen Tang, Susan Ainsworth, Tony Foley, Lawyer Wellbeing, Workplace Experiences and Ethics: A Research Report (Victorian Legal Services Board + Commissioner, the Law Society of New South Wales and the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, 2025).
[4] Vivien Holmes, Julian Webb, Susan Ainsworth, Tony Foley, ‘“The pay is not worth the stress”: research finds 10% of lawyers plan to quit within a year’, The Conversation (online, 17 August 2025) <https://theconversation.com/the-pay-is-not-worth-the-stress-research-finds-10-of-lawyers-plan-to-quit-within-a-year-254699>.
[5] College of Law, ‘Law Forward Legal Industry Satisfaction Survey’ (2025) <https://www.collaw.edu.au/campaigns/college-of-law/2024/law-forward-2024-satisfaction-survey/>.
[6] Readdie v People Shop Pty Ltd (Penalty) [2025] VMC 3.
[7] Readdie v People Shop Pty Ltd [2024] VMC 16 (27 November 2024) [126].
[8] Chin v Visual Thing Australia Pty Ltd (2024) 336 IR 243.
First published 22 August 2025 in the ACT Law Society Ethos magazine, winter edition – “Legal Risks of Excessive Hours at Work“.