Outgoing Law Society chief executive Des Hudson speaks exclusively to Kevin Poulter

'If I had my time again, we would change more quickly than we have done'

Des Hudson has been one of the enduring faces at the Law Society since he took up the role of chief executive in 2006. After almost eight years at the helm, he is set to retire and depart Chancery Lane. SJ's editor at large, Kevin Poulter, met Hudson to discuss his time at the society and asked what regrets, if any, he takes with him, and what the future holds for the society and the solicitor profession.

What first attracted you to the top job at the Law Society?

Back in 2004, I had started doing some work for another professional trade association and I got a taste for the work of professional bodies. It also struck me as an incredibly important and significant time for the society and that somebody needed to step up and take on the role.

I had been very proud to qualify and practise as a solicitor.
I could see that it was a very challenging time with lots of uncertainty. I also thought the
job would be very stimulating and demanding.

Is the job that you ended up doing the same as the one you expected to be doing?

No. Starting, I really didn't have much idea as to what the job was going to be. There were some points that were really clear that turned out to be a constant throughout. The issue for me
was that in these changed circumstances, what is the Law Society for? The issues around relevance, being effective, doing what is best for its members,
and doing that in a way which
is economically efficient were
all factors.

Following the separation of regulation and representation, was it initially difficult to manage the relationship between the Law Society
and the Solicitors
Regulation Authority?

It could have gone lots of
ways. To be involved in fairly tumultuous choices and decisions like that added to
the challenge and the rewards
of the job.

Is it fair to say that the Law Society is no longer the one-size-fits-all association that it used to be? Does it need to consider breaking itself up?

We need to do different things for different members. Clearly, Magic Circle firms don't need the Law Society to do things that a
top- 200 firm or a small practice does. I don't think that breaking up helps. The scale and the resource of the Law Society is a reflection of the entire profession.

During my term, we have spent disproportionately on legal aid-dependent members. That has been the right thing to do
but we are only able to do that because of our scale. If you look
at the work we did in our intervention in the Mitchell case, again we were able to do that because of scale.

The approach I have taken is that what we need to do is segment the work we do to different types of member and member needs. That is a better way of trying to square that circle. We have made a start but we need to be much more focused
in how we go about it.

Was the criticism aimed at you following the criminal legal
aid row fair? Was the special general meeting (SGM) an appropriate use of time
and money?

If you set up a membership organisation and draw up a constitution that says people
are entitled to do this then it is absolutely wrong of the hired help, like me, to say that a meeting was a waste of money.

The Law Society did not carry its argument to a group of criminal practitioners. Did I and the Law Society listen to what was being said? Of course, we thought about it at considerable length. Do I think that I did the right thing? You bet.

Whether or not the decision
on criminal legal aid was the
right thing, our position was determined in accordance with our governance process. Those decisions went in front of boards and the council itself.
Whatever criticism may have been made of me or Nick Fluck, the then Law Society president, what I thought was a hollow criticism was the idea that we had no mandate. You may not agree with our governance process, but under it there was a mandate.

At the moment, the way the body is set up, council is the ultimate decision-making body and is roughly two-thirds constituency-based members.
A third is made up of practice areas that are not geographically represented and to ensure that we have diversity in council.

The way our constitution is written is that our SGM is a way
in which, if there are egregious failures, or an inappropriate use of the process, or that council
was asleep at the wheel, or was not consulted, there would be a way to bring those issues to a head. In that particular issue, council had taken the view of what was the right thing to do.

Is council irrelevant? Does it play no role? The way the constitution is constructed is that those geographical members need to be at the heart of and be the ultimate decision-making body. They need to be interacting with local practitioner groups, law societies and members. Recently, we have seen groups lobbying their local members. There are signs that, post-SGM, there is more awareness of
that role.

Do you think there is a general apathy towards local law societies and the society generally from the profession?

There is a level of disengagement with local law societies, with the society itself and the council. But what is that? Is it that people are unhappy with what the society is doing? Is it that everyone is just massively busy and client interests come first? Is it that they feel dislocated and unhappy with many of the changes that have been forced on the profession? My guess is that it is all of those plus others. How you do something about it is much
more difficult.

I don't think that the absence of strike action is a result of apathy.
I think it illustrates the enormous difference between the role of barristers and solicitors in publicly funded work. A barrister can pick and reject cases and can go on strike very easily. As a solicitor you run a business, you have signed a lease, you employ people, you've signed a four-year contract with the Ministry of Justice or the Legal Aid Agency; the idea that you can go on strike is faintly risible.

But that comes back to the criminal legal aid SGM, where solicitors were not going to go
on strike, and therefore we have a different power dynamic with
the MoJ than barristers.

Is the council representative
of the profession?

It could be more representative and the Law Society has gone to considerable lengths to make sure that we make the council and the committees, which are vitally important, open and accessible to all.

We specifically look at the structure and the design, and
try to make sure all features
and aspects of the profession
are represented in that final decision-making body.
It could be better, but it is a
very genuine and honourable attempt to get it right.

How would you change council if you could start from scratch?

I would change the role of council. The body that would act as the ultimate decision-maker I would have on a much smaller basis. I would take the large council we have at the moment and make it a congress or a forum where, once a quarter, the big issues are argued and debated.
I would then also use that congress as the electoral college for the president.

Has council been friend or foe to you over the last eight years?

They have been friend. It would be nonsense for me to say that everyone on council agrees with me, or that I agree with everyone on council on every topic.

Clearly, there have been disagreements and differences of opinion. What has impressed me is that, in their own way,
99 per cent of those I have dealt with on council are trying to do the right thing by the profession.

What haven't you been able to achieve that you wish you had?

If I had my time again, we would change more quickly, and radically, than we have done.
I would like to have seen us make more progress on being able to service that segment of our members, communities or groups in ways that I have tried
to map out. I would have liked to have seen earlier changes around things we are doing now, such
as the 'find a solicitor' service.

Have you found it more difficult to make radical changes as time has gone on?

It has been more difficult to make those choices and decisions.
I suspect that you find yourself slowed down by the decision you took a year ago or a compromise you may have made 18 months before. It is just inevitable that you eventually slow down.

That is why I think it is important that people don't
stay too long in roles of leadership. You need to hand over the reins of power. SJ

Read part two of this exclusive interview here.

Tweet your comments about this interview @SJ_Weekly