As the Law Society considers a formal divide between its representative and regulatory roles, Alison Hook finds that the ABA may lead the way

The American Bar Association’s annual meeting may not attract the numbers it once did in the nineties, but it is still the largest single gathering of lawyers in the world.


Indeed, the Law Society has found the meeting over the past few years to be increasingly useful and this year’s event in Atlanta did not disappoint. Not least because, as the Law Society considers a greater separation between its representative and regulatory functions, the ABA is a good place to benchmark ideas on how best to represent the legal profession.


The ABA has more than 400,000 members, each of whom receives a package of benefits from their membership that only such a collective purchasing power can offer. The ABA has also been alive to the trend towards specialisation, and provides an effective umbrella organisation for a growing number of sections - 24 to date, each specialising in areas ranging from administrative law to taxation and varying in size from around 3,500 to 60,000 individuals. The sections have a semi-autonomous existence but rely on the ABA centrally for much of their marketing, name recognition and Washington lobbying effort. Unsurprisingly, fairly complicated revenue sharing arrangements underpin this relationship.


The main role of the sections is to focus on delivering continuing professional and networking opportunities in particular areas of law. Much of this CPD is available at the ABA’s annual, spring or autumn meetings or during special section conferences.


One of the other interesting aspects of the ABA is the way it, as a representative body, interacts with US legal regulatory authorities. Legal services in the US are regulated at state level by state supreme courts, but during the ABA annual meeting there is a two-day meeting of what is known as the House of Delegates. The House of Delegates is the policymaking body for the ABA and consists of delegates from each state of the union.


From time to time the House of Delegates will pass resolutions, such as the one it did this year opposing the use of torture by the US government and its contractors in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. But the House of Delegates is also responsible for making what are known as ‘model’ rules of conduct. These rules have no legal sway over state regulators but they have a moral force deriving from the fact that they have been debated and passed by the leaders of the profession in the US as a whole.


What is interesting for the solicitors’ profession about this very different situation in the US is that it might suggest a number of things to the Law Society. First, it is of note that in the US, where the numbers game alone might suggest that specialist organisations would be the preferred option for most attorneys, there is nonetheless still a place for a central body to represent the wider profession.


Secondly, although the US regulatory model is very different from anything that is likely to happen in England and Wales, it is worth noting that there are international precedents for representative bodies to make their views known on regulatory matters to their regulatory counterparts.


And lastly, it is noteworthy that in a country known more for individual than collective action, more than 40% of all qualified US attorneys choose to join a voluntary body representing the legal professsion.


Alison Hook is the head of the Law Society’s international unit