Focus: The law society: Chancery lame

  • Print
  • Comments (21)

Readers' comments (21)

  • So in the last two years the CEO has had a 40% pay rise while the rest of the Society's staff have been suffering a complete pay freeze. Shameless!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is a disgrace, shameful - the staff have had no payrise in many years, as we have been told we have to tighten our belts to make sure we are the Regulator of Choice, but the CEO can give himself a 40% payrise - how can that be, how can he look his staff in the face knowing his pay has risen and ours hasn't. We have also had a pension pay freeze - it makes me wonder whether the CEO has had the samel - or is he lining his pockets ready for his exit!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I don't know how Des Hudson has the gall to stand up infront of his staff after this shameful display of greed. All staff have had no pay rise but it appears that Mr Hudson has seen fit to make sure he has had one!! If the money hadn't been spent on the watse of time also known as the away day, perhaps staff could at least have had a cost of living increase.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Try living on 14000 a year Des,Its hard work!!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The Law Society has been planning to prune deadwood for some time. Anyone who works there with their eyes open has known this and this is part of what Blueprint is about (although no one would dare say this on the record)

    To that extent I think I hear the sound of embittered knives being sharpened in this article. Who exactly are the "former senior employees" wo have briefed the former senior employee author who was himself (and I am sure quite unfairly) an early casualty of the Hudson era? I suspect that some of what Hudson calls "deadwood" is speaking here...

    That said, as an ex employee myself, may I add to the chorus of disgust at the shameless feathering of nests at the top whilst they have preached pay restraint, austerity and the need for cut backs for the rest of staff.

    One only wonders why staff at Chancery Lane seem spineless to hold their senior management team to account.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Usual gripes from Law Society staff, focused entirely upon themselves. You might have a bit more money if your policies had not driven the profession into the ground and you had not shown zero respect for the profession as whole.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Actually LS staff are generally pretty good, they are just unfortunate to be led by donkeys

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • On a straw pole of firms the common gripe was clear out the hangers on that are living in the past especially in the conveyancing side.
    A clear out from top to bottom is required, the LS is not a gentlemans club living in the past, we need to look to the future. The editorial board also needs to put members interest before pet project interest.
    You are in last chance saloon

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Maintaining the closed shop cannot be justified. There needs to be a definitive split between the administrative and supervising role (which should continue) and the representative role (which should not). If individual lawyers wish to subscribe to a society representing their particular interests they should be free to do so. Forcing all solicitors to pay for membership of such a society is simply wrong.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Quote "So in the last two years the CEO has had a 40% pay rise while the rest of the Society's staff have been suffering a complete pay freeze. Shameless!"
    Shame on you |Hudson, surely you can't face any of your staff anymore... Do the right thing and walk away

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (21)