Part II of Kevin Poulter's exclusive interview with Law Society chief executive, Des Hudson

SJ's editor at large, Kevin Poulter, met the Law Society's outgoing chief executive, Des Hudson, to discuss his time at the helm. In the second part of our exclusive interview, Hudson reveals what advice he would offer his successor. Read part one here.

Looking back over the last eight years do you think that the legal profession is now more unified or further apart?

We are in a different place, and that is not a way of avoiding the question, but it seems to me that whether we like it or not, we now have competition within the market. If you take CILEx as an example, the relationship between them and the Law Society is not as it was in 2006 and it can't be. That is not to say that it is worse, it is just different.

Is there a battle between the Law Society and CILEx for membership?

Clearly there is now competition where there wasn't before. I certainly don't think of them as an enemy at the door and I hope they don't think that of us. But what we are all planning to do; not everyone's plan can work. Someone has to be the winner and someone has to be the loser. If you then started bringing in the regulators then the picture becomes even more complicated.

Are direct access barristers a threat to the solicitor profession?

It is a competitive dynamic. Is it a credible threat? Well the fact that half of them plan to do direct access business would see that half getting less work from solicitors. They must make their choice and live with it.

Do I think that barristers taking direct access instructions are going to be able to compete with all types of solicitor-led litigation? No, I don't. Do I think that they could be a competitive supplier of services to major corporates and general counsels? Yes, but again, you are looking at a highly diversified market.

Look who acted for Pfizer when they were making their bid for AstraZeneca, compared to who had sweated blood and tears to get on Pfizer's panel to do their day-to-day legal work. That same lesson is going to apply to direct access instructions and major solicitors firms.

Does that relationship between in-house solicitors and the Law Society need to be strengthened?

I think it needs to be built on. The Law Society has made a start. Historically, the fact of the matter is that the majority of the society's focus, and the majority of those people who participate in its decision-making, have led us down the path of private practice. It is still the single largest group of our members. But increasingly we are recognising the need to be a professional body for all of our members. General counsels are a growing area so we have to do more there.

Do you think that the name 'solicitor' is now held in better or worse esteem by the public?

The respect in which the profession is held is very high. I'm often mystified when I look at stuff coming from the LSB or other sources saying solicitors aren't very good. Day in, day out, solicitors in this country are playing a pivotal role in helping people confront difficult choices and they are seen as highly expert and trusted.

That is not to say that we don't make mistakes. When you have 166,000 human beings, things are going to go wrong on occasion. That is not say that it couldn't be better and that some solicitors need to do a lot more in terms of focus on their clients and the service they provide.

The forecast for junior lawyers has changed in recent years. What can the society do to make sure that junior lawyers have access to and are able to progress through the profession?

There are three things we can do. Without fear or favour, we need to be putting information out there to students to help them make informed choices through every stage of their career.

Second, we need to say that nothing is going to stay still. Solicitors became more successful than attorneys because they adapted to the needs to users of legal services. Nothing is forever; we have got to keep changing. If there is a different role, such as the one filled by paralegals, many of whom are expertly qualified and trained, then can we create more awareness that that role, in itself, can be fulfilling. Are there different ways in which people can plan and develop a career as a solicitor?

The third thing we need to do is confront the issue of why it is that many of our fellow citizens and parliamentarians don't seem to share our feelings on the importance of the rule of law and due process. What is going wrong? What can we do better to open those ears to debate and discussion? Why is there such a negative attitude in this country towards human rights? Why do we seem to misunderstand or undervalue what they are?

What can the society do to maintain England's reputation as the go-to jurisdiction for legal disputes?

We definitely have a role to play in company with others, such as major firms, the judiciary and central government. We all need to put our shoulder to that wheel because the competitive threat from other players is very significant. We need to make a decision as a society and as a country; what do we want our justice system to do? We have to be careful of the tail wagging the dog.

Many politicians and commentators may be asking whether some of the cases being heard in British courts are actually appropriately heard here. What we need to remember is that the justice system is here to serve the country and not necessarily as a means to earn foreign money. I can therefore understand why we need to have a debate on libel tourism.

That said it is important that all parts of the parliamentary spectrum understand the contribution that the legal system makes to the creation and generation of wealth in UK plc. We have been working very hard on a cross-party basis to make that clear.

Having London as a place where international legal business is transacted and where there is unquestionable confidence in the quality of our judicial and legal processes is important to the generation of wealth, and is one of the areas where we have an economic advantage. We should do what we can to make it last.

What are the main challenges for the Society over the next 12 months to five years?

We need to continue to create a role for the society that carries the support of all of its members. If the Law Society can't do that then it clearly has a big challenge. Beyond that it needs to provide relevant and contemporary services on the issues that amount to its various members. Its scale is a plus but that means that it needs to organise itself and not try to offer a one-size-fits-all approach. It also needs to offer the widest range of practitioners to be involved in council, our boards and committees.

Looking at the quality of advice that I have had for the presidents I have worked with, and our various committees, it has been first rate. It also does its best work when it is working in partnership with practitioner experts. How we galvanise that and share expertise is massively important.

What has been the biggest thorn in your side over the last eight years?

My own timidity, I would suspect.

What advice would you give the new chief executive for their first 100 days?

My advice would be to sit on their hands for those 100 days, listen, think, work it all out and then act. Do it quickly and do it once.

What is next for you when you hand over the reins?

Well I'm not planning on taking up golf or going fly fishing. I would like to stay busy and be involved and to give a little back if I could and to be involved with interesting people. One of the great privileges of this job is that I have had the opportunity to work with some very able and talented people so I would like to keep that up if I can.

What I am not going to do is to be holding court downstairs in the reading room or commenting ever on Law Society matters.

Going back to the application process in 2006, if you knew what was to come would you do it again?

Yes. I've had a great time. SJ

Tweet your comments about this interview @SJ_Weekly