A house divided? The Law Society and its representative 'tightrope' act

Lawyers are famous for disagreeing. But there was little joy in the arguments at the pre-Christmas Law Society special general meeting. Some speakers said they found it "rather sad", others regretted how the profession was "turning in on itself".

The SGM no-confidence motion was narrowly passed, but the society is under attack not only by criminal legal aid lawyers.

In a speech earlier in December, David Edmonds, chairman of the Legal Services Board, proposed that the SRA should be merged into a single legal regulator while the Law Society should be stripped of its ability to charge compulsory fees for its representative activities.

Nick Fluck, president of the Law Society, and one of the targets of the no-confidence motion along with chief executive Des Hudson, gave voice at the meeting to a growing sense of alienation among solicitors and concern that the government is not simply hostile to legal aid or personal injury lawyers, but to all of them.

"I've lived in Lincolnshire most of my life and been in practice there now for more than 32 years," Fluck said. "I'm a practising solicitor, running a firm, who has seen this profession of ours grow and at times struggle.

"As a solicitor not too dissimilar to many people here, I understand why members ?are angry and frustrated.

"Believe me, I know what it's like when you can't focus on doing your job because you're worrying about your overdraft, struggling to keep your office watertight or wondering how you're going to pay your staff ?or the VAT.

"I know this is part of what it means to be a solicitor, not ?just for me but for many of ?our members.

"We seem to have a government that wants to sweep away our industry: introducing liberalisation, non-lawyer competition, failing to recognise or value the difference we solicitors make day in, day out and we have a secretary of state for justice who isn't a solicitor and doesn't seem to understand what that means."

Rodney Warren, senior partner of Rodney Warren & Co and a Law Society Council member, voted against the motion.

However, he said he thought the SGM had served a "very helpful purpose".

Warren went on: "The Law Society has got criminal practitioners at heart. There's no doubt about that, but there has to be a direct link with what practitioners think, feel ?and want.

"People may have thought that the Lord Chancellor and the Ministry of Justice would love it. I'm not so sure. They will now understand how difficult the representative function of the Law Society is. It's a tightrope and they need to understand the requirement for flexibility."

Franklin Sinclair, senior partner of Tuckers, took a different view, describing the SGM as a "complete waste of time and money".

He said: "It doesn't seem to have made any difference, does it? Nobody's resigned and there's been no postal vote.

"All they've agreed is to listen to the views of Mr Parry and communicate with them."

Sinclair described the strike as "premature and inadequate" and said he was against it.

"There will be no real disruption and it will have no effect on the MoJ whatsoever.

"We're in the middle of a consultation. The MoJ has listened before and they are now considering what they ?will do."

However, Steve Hynes, director of the Legal Action Group, said the government wanted to save £220m and ?had "no sentiment" in ?these situations.

"It's a power struggle," he said. "They will listen, but push things as far as they can."

Hynes supported the strike action. "I think the Law Society should have split into a trade union and a regulatory arm a long time ago, like the BMA and GMC. The BMA has trade ?union immunity.

"Within the union there could be different sections, such as a criminal section. If part of the Law Society wanted to go down the trade union route and another part didn't, an accommodation could be reached.

"When I talk to City lawyers, they are aghast at what is happening. They see what is happening to the criminal justice system and they don't like it. They believe the system is ?being undermined.

"I think the Law Society did everything possible on LASPO, but if you don't engage the public mind in an extraordinary way, you've got to rely on using the tools at your disposal. The people providing the service can say: 'We'll walk away.'" SJ

'We need to have a profession-wide vote'

Ronnie Fox, senior partner of City employment firm Fox and past president of the City of London Law Society:

"There’s a psychological phenomenon called projection. If you’re having a problem caused by someone you can’t attack, you project that problem onto someone else.

"There is a problem with funding. One hundred per cent of the profession thinks it is wrong that the government should cut back so hard on legal aid funding. Many of the supporters of the resolution projected their frustration with the government onto the Law Society.

"They have unrealistic expectations of what the Law Society in general, and what Nick Fluck and Des Hudson in particular, can do. I believe they are well motivated and have tried to do their best. It’s not their fault.

"What I find particularly distasteful is the personal nature of the attack. The resolution was framed as a vote of no confidence in Des Hudson and Nick Fluck in particular.

"Most people think they could do better than the chancellor of the exchequer. It is irrelevant because the chancellor makes the decisions. The government wants to reduce the spend on legal aid. This will impact on a large number of solicitors and their clients. It’s tragic but it’s not the government’s fault.

"We are told that a postal ballot could cost £80,000. I think it’s worth it. What would happen if the Law Society isn’t supported? We’d be even worse off.

"I think it’s a risk worth taking because it goes to the credibility of the Law Society. I believe solicitors would reject the motion and say the Law Society is doing its best.

"It’s very embarrassing. The profession has turned on its own representatives. If the Law Society is not there to fight the corner of solicitors, who will? One united professional body speaks with a much louder voice than a number of specialist organisations.

"I don’t believe strikes are a good way of securing change. It will just be seen as people protecting their own interests. Their chances of success are very little – almost none."