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

  • The Law Society used to be run by a bunch of old farts, and it is now run by a bunch of politically correct law firm drop outs. Each has been totally irrelevant to me as a provincial and now an overseas lawyer. How many of us would notice if it disappeared ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is way past the time that the Law Society was wound up.
    The SRA is obviously the regulator and is increasing its power all the time-even though it is just a box ticking bureaucracy.
    The only future for the Law Society was to represent the profession to the regulator-but it didn'y have the guts, being trapped in the past..Aoitt

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As one of the people likened to a First World War General (“Lions led by Donkeys”), an “old fart” or “politically correct law firm drop out”, I would like to comment as follows.
    If you follow the historical analogy, you are meant to think that I was a General sitting in well behind the front line in my chateau sipping champagne whilst the brave employees of the Law Society were sent to the front as cannon fodder.
    In fact, this is an incorrect observation; the better analogy is with the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War. Law Society staff were like the soldiers Soviet. They had the whip hand and an incredibly nasty battery of tools to use against Generals who got out of line.
    During the Russian Civil War a famous Tsarist General, Brusilov, was drafted in to assist the Bolsheviks. Needless to say he had to rigidly tow the Bolshevik line. Law Society staffs were always on the lookout for Brusilovs to fill the officeholder positions.
    In this article a former senior Law Society official is quoted as saying the following:-

    “The society’s never got its head round the fact that it’s lost its role as a regulator,” comments a former Chancery Lane senior official. “After the Clementi review it should have fought in the ditches to keep that position, but it compromised and failed in the end.”

    Michael Garson, Linda Lee and a few people did fight this. They received no support from Law Society staff in this, quite the reverse. Lord Falconer, the then Lord Chancellor, was brought down to Chancery Lane to tell Council Members to vote for the change. Most did so. Perhaps Mr Ames would like to list, by name, the Law Society staff who sought to temper the then Chief Executive’s enthusiasm for this change.

    Furthermore, There are also complaints about the LSA 2007 in this article as follows:-

    “Indeed, regulating the solicitors’ profession lies at the heart of the Law Society’s identity crisis. To be fair, the legislation itself is considered to be far from ideal. Ironically, instead of -simplifying the regulatory maze ¬identified by Sir David Clementi in his 2004 report, the LSA has added even more mud to the water.”

    No one would have thought that Law Society staff had input into the LSA, would they? But they did and if it is a mess then they are partly responsible.

    As usual, there is also an attack is on the Law Society Council. As “a bloated retirement home for senior practitioners who have been put out to grass by their firms.”, even though Mr Ames knows that there is a wide age range on the council. He even revives the previous Chief Executives idea of slimming down the council. A small council would, of course, have been easier to control.

    This article is all about an over mighty and barely accountable bureaucracy, namely the officials of the Law Society, suddenly realizing that the changes they have foisted on the profession are going to have a profound effect on them. These changes were “pushed” by Des Hudson’s predecessor and they have nothing to do with him.

    Income is falling and the Law Society officials have to learn that they are not going to escape from the fate of the high street as a whole. Their jobs are at risk now and will be for the foreseeable future.
    The days when they could behave like Mamelukes (Egyptian officials who tended to execute their leaders) are over. This article, centering on Des Hudson’s salary, is the last gasp of that tendency.
    You won’t get rid of Des and things are not going to get easier for Law Society officials.

    Finally, Mr Ames you should take note of some Council Members reluctance to hold practising certificates. This is not a sign that they are retired or has beens. It is a sign that they understand what is about to happen to this profession and they don’t want to be caught in the mess.

    PS. I am neither an “old fart” nor a “politically correct law firm drop out”. I am someone who gave hours of my time free to try and stop the destruction of my profession. I cared about the future and I followed my principles. I did something instead of constantly moaning.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • SRA staff are there to do their job - and that is regulate solicitors - and without such regulation the profession would not be so highly regarded. The cost of the PC fee is determined by those a little higher up (ie the ones taking the big pay increases or bonus) rather than the ordinary staff member (the ones on the pay freeze for several years now) and I can fully understand the concerns of solicitors who have paid high fees for the last few years when the Law Society and SRA have had the monopoly, and now that there will be competition the fees are suddenly lower. So, as there will be competition perhaps those solicitors who feel they have been ripped off and ignored for years should vote with their feet and check out the competition.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The Law Society has failed it's members and the public.
    Those who took control of the Law Society have done very well for themselves as have those upon whom they bestow their patronage.
    They are fortunate to have got away with pulling the wool over the eyes of so many for so long.
    How much longer will members allow this to go on?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As a former, nationally-elected Member of the Council of the Law Society, who was therefore in an enviable position to observe Chancery Lane in action, I would say, it is quite impossible to hate him, so it has to be the other thing.
    The plain fact is that the Profession, consists of two unequal halves: the City and other mega-firms on the one hand, and the rest. Whatever the former may say to the contrary, their power and organisational strength means, that it is they who call the shots, - and they know it.
    At a time when unprecedent challenges rain down upon the profession, few could hand-on-heart deny that Hudson has striven to do his best for all. It ill-behoves those in the City, which unlike the rest of the profession continues to enjoy eye-watering rewards out of the laissez-faire financial policies of the last Government, which simultaneously whacked the rest of us at every available opportunity, - to suggest otherwise.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How on Earth can you say Des Hudson has 'striven to do his best for all'? A man gives himself a 40% pay rise up to £400,000 PA when everyone around him is seeing financial pain, legal aid cuts are coming in, the Law Society does not even act as a regulator anymore, and he is meant to be some kind of saint doing good for all? Are you totally barmy? Sorry, but it all looks just like it is. Worse, is he not paid by the very lawyers who are now losing out? Young lawyers with little future are paying money into the Law Society which is then being turned into a huge pay rise for someone, who legally, no longer has almost any say over how lawyers operate. The Law Society now is just a quango and pretty much pointless, that its Chief fills his pockets at the same time as all this turmoil is a terrible message - but sadly a message we have come to expect from such organisations. Abolish the Law Society now and return the money to the profession.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Just had a look at the Law Society's annual accounts for 2009, interesting to see how much the profession pays for these people:
    "Practising certificate (PC) fee income reported in
    the year amounted to £126.0m, compared with
    £103.7m in 2008. On the face of it this represents
    an increase of £22.3m or 21.5%."
    I.e. the Law Society in 2009 - when lawyers all over the place were seeing less income, saw its own income rise by 21.5%. Then you just have to add in the nice big fat salaries and pension contributions to the execs and you have a jolly nice gravy train.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anyone interested in standing for the next Law Society Council elections on an "abolish the Law Society" platform?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Funny, but I never pay any attention to the Law Society at all. It's a complete irrelevance to the City - take a look at the Gazette (there are probably a few thousand shrink-wrapped editions floating around your office somewhere).

    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)