Unleashed | Taking a back seat

I sort of retired last week. Not (lest you get out the bunting and champagne) from work but from two Law Society committees I have been on for 13 and 15 years respectively. I suspect that the work of Law Society committees is not well known to the average solicitor, albeit that the Law Society have referred to their committees as the "crown jewels".

I joined the housing law committee about 15 years ago. I had spotted a small ad and thought it sounded interesting. They were looking for a "specialist housing practitioner" who could give a steer on policy, legislation and who was available for about ten three hour meetings a year.

In those early days there was no interview and the selection process was a little haphazard but I was appointed and stayed on the committee without a break until last week. We got stuck into the disrepair protocol, Law Commission ?papers on renting homes and endless consultation papers on anti-social behaviour. We grumbled about the cuts in legal aid and regularly called for a specialist housing court.

Some of what we did was highly successful. The disrepair protocol which is now used throughout the land was nurtured, debated and thrashed out by some of our committee. This was a piece of work that probably took three years and countless meetings to bring to fruition.

Remember those of us who were involved were doing it voluntarily and without pay. Sometimes I claimed my tube fare to Chancery Lane. Some of the committee came a long way, from Leeds, Cardiff, Birmingham and Newcastle. When you're based in Cardiff, a meeting of the housing law committee can chew up a lot of charagable hours!

Eye off the ball

After a year or two I was invited to join the access to justice committee at the Law Society. This was essentially the legal aid committee. Meetings were longer, grimmer and a little angrier than those of the Housing Law Committee.

Originally we were all intent on increasing the rates earned by legal aid solicitors. So intent were we on this endeavour that I suspect we took our collective eye off the ball. While we were wasting time trying to increase rates we should have been preserving what was ?in scope. But access to justice has always put up a vigourous defence of the legal ?aid practitioner.

Behind the scenes and maybe too quietly for its own good those on this committee have achieved any number of victories against sometimes very serious opposition. We have launched judicial review proceedings against the Legal Services Commission, negotiated rather impressive settlements in the best interests of the profession and constantly reminded the Ministry of Justice that the legal aid side of the profession are no push-over.

Tricky work

We have supported both civil and criminal practitioners and I suspect but for the constant hard work of this committee we would dealing with even tougher times than presently. Recently huge amounts of work have been done by those on the committee striving to kick competitive tendering into the long grass. This sort of work is tricky, involves long hours considering detailed documentation and sometimes can be an almost full-time project. Those at the MOJ are paid to do this. They have consultants, lawyers and accountants advising them. Those of us on the access to justice committee give up our time voluntarily. An unfair fight? Probably. Worthwhile? You bet.

Getting out of the office can be good for all of us. Getting to grips with policy, legislation and government departments is a very refreshing eduction. I was sad to retire from these two pressure groups. I had decided to retire a few years back but had been persuaded to stay on the committees for a couple more years. But committees take up time and in the post-LASPO world in which we live that is time I no longer have, and in any event committees should thrive on new blood. Pity I wasn't allowed to bring the dog; I suspect he might have livened up the sometimes rather dour atmosphere in Access to Justice!