The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
Treasurer breaks rank from management over proposed OSS development
The Law Society has voted against spending an estimated £48m on a new complaints handling site in the Midlands.
The vote, at a 2:1 majority, follows a letter seen by many council members from the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine to Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva, threatening an end to self regulation (The Lawyer, 2 December).
The new Midlands site was proposed to house complaints handling staff working for Law Society regulatory arm the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, who are already based in the region, as well as some other administrative functions.
The proposal was brought by the Law Society's senior management team, comprising Paraskeva and senior staff, and was supported by the society's main board, which president Carolyn Kirby sits on with Paraskeva, the treasurer and committee heads.
Just days before the vote, Law Society treasurer and main board member Geoffrey Sandercock controversially broke rank, emailing council members to speak out against the proposal.
Talking about the risks of spending the extra money, he wrote: "It is clearly important that we provide properly for our staff. However, we do not need to spend millions of pounds to impress the Lord Chancellor."
The Law Society's senior management team originally put the cost of the Midlands building at £23.5m, but the treasurer states that the entire operation would have cost £48m.
Philip Hamer, a member of the Law Society's finance and resources board, said: "£23.5m is what we would have paid for the building, not how much it would have cost."
Hamer also defended the treasurer's right to break rank with the Law Society's senior management team and Main Board. "He was just doing his job. He sent the note out to all council members because he felt we needed to know," he said.