Law Society leadership in chaos as solicitors pass no-confidence vote By Jonathan Ames 17 December 2013 15:15 17 December 2015 13:15 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Anonymous 17 December 2013 at 16:04 While I sympathise with the Law Society on one hand, I still question its needs to exist. As the representative body it should be independent of both the regulator and the MoJ, then maybe it could grow a backbone and put across its point in a fair and balanced manner. As it is, the Law Soc and its senior management are operating with one hand behind their back. I am just surprised it has taken this long to get a vote, this should have all been sorted out years ago when the SRA was first suggested. Reply Link Anonymous 17 December 2013 at 16:26 The profession should voice a collective ‘thank you’ to James who has had the courage to take a stand and to all those who made the effort to attend and support the motion. I am sure that there are many practitioners who would have liked to attend and support the motion were either unable to do so or took the view that so doing would not be consequence free. There are I suspect (if the sample in the Dog & Duck is representaive) few who have any confidence in the senior management of The Law Society at all. If the president of a Rugby or Cricket club suffered such a defeat I have no doubt that their resignation would follow by return; have we now sunk to such depths that a no confidence motion can be brushed off with such insiouciance? Reply Link Anonymous 17 December 2013 at 16:53 Today’s vote will prove to be a pyrrhic victory for legal aid practitioners and a serious blow to The Law Society in its attempts to negotiate a decent deal for them -and to represent the interests of an increasinly fragmented profession. It is a sad day for all lawyers – not just solicitors – who, more than ever before, need to work together to defend the rule of law, access to justice and the future viability of the profession as a profession. James Parry and his accolytes have done themselves – and all of us – a terrible disservice. Truly a bonfire of the vanities… Reply Link Mark Hollywood 17 December 2013 at 19:42 I respectfully suggest that Mr Hudson sees this unprecedented action as the writing on the wall for his leadership. The noble thing to do is re-sign and agree to work sufficient notice for a New CEO to be found who can be more effective in role. If you choose to remain it will only attract more negative attention, because let’s be honest you are not coming back from this one are you. If you remain I suggest a full ballot of the profession will reveal the animosity that is held for the Law Society that you lead and you ineffective leadership. Because its not just about legal aid is it! It’s scandal after scandal from heavy handed SRA actions to PII . You just haven’t represented us have you….. So go quietly and close the door gently behind you. Reply Link Anonymous 17 December 2013 at 20:18 Rarely can any profession have been as badly lead as we are by the Law Society. Reply Link Alan Assault 17 December 2013 at 21:43 £80 grand to organise a profession-wide electronic postal vote? Have they not heard of Survey Monkey ffs? Reply Link Anonymous 17 December 2013 at 23:18 Makes sense to me that negotiation is the right way to go here and that this negotiation needs to be by the representative body. All that has happened today is that lawyers look like they are all about safeguarding their own interests. Self-interested factions will not get a credible seat at the table. The upshot of this is that the reforms will be worse as the MoJ sees a self-interested divided profession. Reply Link MickC 18 December 2013 at 05:52 Resignations should have been immediate. So much for the ethics and standards the leadership constantly preach-apparently they are only for the “plebs”, not the rulers. Unsurprising, but typical. Reply Link RT 18 December 2013 at 08:26 Congratulations to the no confidence voters, you have done the legal profession proud. This was a brave display of the democratic right to hold a membership organisation to account. For too many years the LawSoc has been home to a culture of fecklessness and unaccountability. Now its members, who pay for its existence, have given it a bloody nose for not listening to their legitimate concerns. Whether the LawSoc’s leadership will survive this or not is still unclear, but either way professionals in this country have shown they will not be sold down the river by a self-serving quango that doesn’t even ask their opinion. (P.S. the use of the LawSoc Gazette, again which members pay for, as a one-sided propaganda sheet to protect the LawSoc executive and that blocks comments on stories about this issue to avoid airing criticism doesn’t look good either). Reply Link anon 18 December 2013 at 11:24 When has the Law Society not been a shambles in the last say 30 years? Reply Link Anonymous 18 December 2013 at 11:37 The comment at 11:18 p.m. raises a valid point; but the counter argument is that an organisation that is led by figures which the membership has no confidence in is not well placed to negotiate on behalf of the membership: for, in such circusmtances, there must be real doubt as to whether the leadership can carry any motion proposed following negotiations. As to sending the senior leadership into battle again, well it may be magnificent but it is not war. Reply Link Anonymous 18 December 2013 at 13:00 It is very interesting to note that the house journal of the City solicitors have run with this giving full vent to the possible implications whilst other publications are reporting it but playing it down. The truth is that the governance of our profession has been woefully neglected by the profession at large. Leadership has been left to a self selecting group of volunteers who sit on the Law Society Council. Elections to the Law Society Council have often been uncontested. It is no wonder that such people buckle when faced by protracted government campaigns. Indeed, the real damage was done between 1997 and 2010 when the then government not only introduced ABSs, which directly threaten the livelihood of all solicitors but also pressed for legislative powers to be passed from the elected Law Society Council to an appointed board, the SRA, supervised by a quango, the LSB. This was done after direct pressure applied by the then Lord Chancellor and Minister of Justice. The contrast with the fight by the press, to avoid a much weaker form of interference, should be showing us what we lost by kow towing to ministerial ideas. The comments emanating from Ms Barass about pressure to register ABSs quickly from powerful people should show us that the ABS measure had powerful backers who, presumably, saw a wonderful profit to be made from our work. Where was the City of London or high street campaign against ABSs? There was none and so it is hardly surprising that the Law Society Council could not put up a strong defence to this measure. Poor Mr Hudson, his predecessor, under whose watch ABSs and loss of legislative power were enacted, ended up a Dame and a privy councillor. Mr Hudson cannot look forward to such preferment. The irony of all this is that the only area of law where there has been a consistent and very successful campaign to avoid the worst aspects of government reforms is criminal law. Both Mr Hudson and his predecessor were fully behind this campaign and a cadre of criminal defence solicitors on the Law Society Council worked and work tirelessly to stop such initiatives as competitive tendering and their work is voluntary. So, where were you when these issues which affect us all were being decided in 1997 to 2010? It is no good blaming the leadership for past failings when you, yourself, did not join the barricades. Reply Link Anonymous 18 December 2013 at 13:38 As a foreign in-house lawyer with 8 year of experience who has been trying to qualify in England and due to archaic views of their employees (and SRA for that matter) cannot, I would support any motion which would make this out-dated organisation think what is its purpose. Reply Link Anonymous 18 December 2013 at 13:49 I am not a criminal lawyer but it seems to me that the leadership of the Law Society has really let down the profession. They are to represent all lawyers not just the large firms. There was a time when to be a solicitor was a proud profession – now it is reduced to a business. Sure it has to make money but it should be done with pride and principles. Having worked in large firms the only reason people make money is because of size not of ability. The Law Society leadership should look to its roots and decide where they stand. Non professional leadership has got the profession into this position. Remove the CEOI and appoint someone who cares and does not see it as a job. Reply Link Anonymous 18 December 2013 at 13:59 Increasingly the legal profession is required to take a commercial approach in order to meet the needs of clients. On every occasion the Law Society fails to provide any support for both lawyers and law firms regading commerciality. It is out dated and unfit for purpose and other professions find it laughable in comparrison to their own pofessional bodies. Reply Link Anonymous 18 December 2013 at 14:06 Agree – a great service was done for us all by those prepared to take the time and be brave enough to speak out. I do commercial work and understand little about legal aid. However, access to justice is so important that each and every one of us should do his/her part. We solicitors understand that. If we don’t fight tooth and nail for access to jsutice, who will? And who could do it as eloquently as us anyway? This is not a first. Remember The Law Society lobbying against the introduction of rules against squatters? Again, no consultation with the profession. Made us look truly self-serving. What about PII? They choose to do nothing meaningful. Perhaps one of the answers is to create a truly democratic leadership contest, with competing candidates rather than the shoo in and cronyism of the current system that has been the same for decades. Let’s have that postal vote across the whole profession and see how it comes out! Reply Link MickC 18 December 2013 at 16:32 Anon 2.06 There used to be elections for the Presidency-then the “wrong” people, such as Martin Meacher got it, and it was declared to be too expensive! Democracy is never cheap, but always best. The placemen we have had have been disastrous for the profession. Incidentally, no resignations yet. They are still treating the people who pay their large, overblown salaries with utter contempt. It really is an obscene spectacle-even a banana republic dictator would be embarassed! Reply Link Anonymous 18 December 2013 at 17:18 It is reported that Des Hudson stated that the SGM cost TLS £120000 whereas a national ballot on the same motion would cost £200000 and that the latter is not justified: Could we have a breakdown of what the somewhat incredible sum of £120K was spent on,e.g.transporting in 100 in Council members and meeting their expenses,TLS campaign to oppose the motion,etc.?;and Could TLS explain why a meeting/vote involving potentially up to only 600 registered to attend members involved such an apparently excessive cost?;and Would a National Ballot of about 100000 members really cost as much as £200000 given that it could largely be done online? Why is TLS so afraid of a national ballot if it considers itself representative of the majority of it’s members and unlikely or lose it as Hudson asserts?;and What safeguards if any would TLS put in place so as to ensure that it’s membership was convinced as to the integrity of a National Ballot and that it was full,fair,open and accurate and reported as to one member one vote not say one “Big Firm=many votes?Would it agree to such a vote being administered and counted externally? Reply Link Matthew Fresco 19 December 2013 at 00:36 RESIGN! Reply Link Anonymous 19 December 2013 at 05:07 A few weeks ago there was a news item about how some people were enslaved not physically but psychologically for over 30 years. I have been a criminal defence lawyer for 27 years. One government after another have imposed cuts. For me the blow below the belt was when defence lawyers were not allowed to claim proper travel expenses. It is such a fundamental cut. One speaker said at the Law Society meeting on the 17th December last that the turn out to the meeting was poor because most Defence and Civil Legal aid lawyers had better things to do. No. I too would not have turned up. I had the choice. Do I turn up and vote for No Confidence or go to a police station to earn some money to feed my kids. I decided to turn up because I fear that if we do not take a stand the cuts will indeed mean I cannot feed my kids. Psychologically Defence solicitor are enslaved. Well done Mr Parry for standing up. Reply Link Mark Hollywood 19 December 2013 at 08:35 Are you still here Des? It has been two days since the vote of no confidence in you and there has been no statement from you. It says it all doesn’t it! As with every issue you have faced in your role as leader you just bury your head hoping that matters will go away. Please do the decent thing either resign or ballot the full membership. Reply Link Anonymous 19 December 2013 at 11:56 Indeed, the defeaning silence from Mr Hudson et al indicates not only their contempt for the profession but also their lack of moral fibre. Reply Link Lawyer 24 December 2013 at 14:13 About time the Law Society was completely overhauled. It is a slack establishment for years and has contributed to the deterioration of the legal profession, to the point where law is no longer a profession but a commodity. Tighter control is needed on the number of people who can practise: the market is overswamped with lawyers; people kidding themselves into believing they can be lawyers and those coming into law to salvage an existence from an ambition elsewhere that never materialised (or never existed / was ill-planned). For example, this tacky ‘Graduate Diploma in Law’ reduces the integrity and value of the legal profession. Get rid of it! Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.