Losing an election I can take in my stride but please spare me the regular sermons from Tony Holland. Although I normally disagree with virtually everything he says I have resisted the urge to respond, but one of his recent columns contained two statements which are such fine examples of Law Society-speak that I can't let them go unchallenged.
The first is his assumption that multi-disciplinary partnerships are inevitable. This is the kind of self-fulfilling prophecy which the Law Society has indulged in for years. Assume the worst, say that it is inevitable, offer no resistance and when it eventually happens bleat: "We told you so."
As far as I can gather, every other legal establishment in the world is against multi-discip linary partnerships. That was, and still is, the Law Society's policy. However, the first chink in that opposition has appeared with the announcement that the policy will be reviewed. The original suggestion that this be done implied that a change of policy should be welcomed, but after protest this was watered down to looking at it with "an open mind". Whatever the wording, it is reasonably clear that deep in the bowels of the Law Society the decision has already been made and no effort will be spared to push it through.
The other Holland gem was about democracy. He says that democracy is a wonderful thing, then immediately argues for its abolition as far as presidential elections are concerned. Another classic Law Society mannerism. Stake your claim to the moral high ground but then explain why it shouldn't be applied to the case in question. Leave choosing the president to the council, he says – they are wise and can be trusted to make the right choice on your behalf. Remember, Mr Holland – they have not always succeeded in the past.
Sayer Moore & Co