Lawyers opposing the idea of a nationwide workers' compensation scheme say any attempt to nationalise the system will produce a hodge-podge of "lowest common denominator" protections.

The incoming President of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, Ian Brown, says workers will be worse off under national schemes like Comcare because politicians will "inevitably choose the cheapest and most cost-effective model" at the expense of sound policy.

The alliance, a group of about 1500 lawyers mainly specialising in personal injury claims, is staunchly opposed to any national scheme, but supports more "synchronicity" between the different state schemes.

Mr Brown told Sunrise Exchange News the group is "more broadly" opposed to Federal Government overtures towards national oversight of workers' compensation.

"What historically happens is when you try and reach a consensus and consistency, governments adopt the scheme that is the cheapest and the most cost-effective," he said.

"If we get a national scheme, inevitably what happens is you end up with the lowest common denominator. Worst still, we could end up with a basket case like the New Zealand scheme."

Private companies have recently been allowed to join the Federal Government's Comcare scheme. John Holland is among more than dozen private companies including NAB, Linfox, Chubb, Optus, CSL and Australia Post who have recently left their separate state schemes to join Comcare.

In June, more than 5000 workers transferred from state government workers’ compensation arrangements to Comcare.

Despite a push from the private sector to join Comcare, Mr Brown says most companies are opting to remain with their state systems.

"I think it's interesting there has not been a mass move by corporations to join the Comcare scheme," he said.

Lawyers, who have lost business from the introduction of tort reform, could also stand to lose out from Comcare, where reduced premiums and capped compensation payouts are attractive selling points for businesses.

But Mr Brown says the legal fraternity isn't motivated by self-interest. "It isn't a question of lawyer self-interest at all," he said. "It is about workers being far worse off under a national scheme."