Michael Pagsanjan

Profile

Michael

Pagsanjan

Principal

Qualifications

Bachelor of Laws and Legal Practice (Honours), Flinders University
Bachelor of International Studies, Flinders University
NMAS Accredited Mediator, Australian Mediation Association
Certificate in Cross-Sector Partnering, CQ University
Certificate in Digital Leadership, RMIT University
Certificate in Management, Harvard Business School
Admitted to practice 2009

Areas of Expertise

Native title
Native title compensation
Agreement negotiations
Governance and compliance for Aboriginal corporations
Commercial law and risk management
Judicial review
Mediation and facilitation

Professional Interests

My Professional Interests:

Graduate and member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors
Graduate and member of Scotwork Negotiation

My Charitable and Social Interests:

Former Director, Nexus Arts
Former Director, Australian Refugee Association

What Michael's clients say

“Michael has demonstrated a rare blend of ethical integrity, high competency across the full native title spectrum, commitment to quality outcomes for clients.” – President Kevin Smith, National Native Title Tribunal.

Get in touch with Michael

Michael's Story

Michael Pagsanjan is the founder and principal of MPS Law and one of Australia’s leading lawyers in native title and cultural heritage law. With over 16 years of experience, Michael is known for delivering ethical, culturally respectful and strategic legal outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients.

Michael’s approach combines deep legal expertise with practical, solution-focused advice. He has led landmark outcomes including Australia’s first native title compensation consent determination and the negotiation of the Yamatji Nation settlement—two historic milestones that reflect his commitment to meaningful, long-lasting results.

Michael is a Federal Court-approved external native title mediator and a nationally accredited mediator with extensive experience facilitating culturally sensitive negotiations. He regularly advises directors and CEOs of Aboriginal corporations on native title, governance, compliance and risk. His work spans the negotiation of complex native title and mining agreements, support for Aboriginal health and education organisations, and assisting clients navigating regulatory examinations and special administration.

Michael’s reputation in the legal profession is reflected in his accolades: Native Title Partner of the Year (Lawyers Weekly, 2023), finalist for Managing Partner of the Year (Lawyers Weekly, 2020), and Young Lawyer of the Year (Law Society of South Australia, 2018). He has been recognised in Doyle’s Guide (2017, 2021–2026) and Chambers and Partners Asia-Pacific (2020–2026).

Prior to founding MPS Law, Michael held roles in the native title and not-for-profit sectors and worked at a major commercial law firm. He has served as a director at Nexus Arts and the Australian Refugee Association and remains committed to social justice and First Nations self-determination.

Michael holds a Bachelor of Laws and Legal Practice (Honours) and a Bachelor of International Studies from Flinders University. He also holds qualifications in mediation, leadership, cross-sector partnering and management from the Australian Mediation Association, RMIT University, CQ University and Harvard Business School.

Michael is proud to be a father to three young children. When he’s not working with clients across the country, he enjoys spending time outdoors with his family—volunteering at local sporting clubs, mountain biking, hiking, fishing, and camping.

Media & Blog Posts

Case note: Stuart v South Australia [2025] HCA 12

In Stuart v South Australia [2025] HCA 12, the High Court reaffirmed that the s 223(1) enquiry must focus on whether rights and interests are connected to land and waters by traditional laws and customs—not by proof of physical presence or ongoing physical exercise. A properly grounded spiritual connection may be sufficient. The decision also highlights the value of prior adjacent determinations in establishing key elements of s 223(1), and cautions that applying the wrong framework can distort how evidence is assessed and lead to error.