Desmond Hudson brings a tough business head to the job of steering the Law Society's representation arm into its new role, reports Jonathan Ames

Desmond Hudson is used to playing hardball. Here is an example: a couple of years ago, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales clashed with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland (ICAS). Mr Hudson was chief executive of the latter when the southern cousins mooted the creation of an accountancy super body south of the border and dropping the ‘England and Wales’ part of its name – potentially causing some confusion in the eyes of the public.


Mr Hudson launched himself vigorously into the debate and to those who thought he was over-zealous, he replies: ‘If you roll your tanks onto my lawn, then I will defend my patch.’


That forthright attitude – born perhaps out of his Yorkshire roots – should serve him well in his role as the new chief executive of the representation branch of the Law Society of England and Wales, where he will be stepping into fresh and potentially difficult territory. Chancery Lane is going through the most tumultuous period of its history, with the Law Society having split into three autonomous parts – representation, regulation and consumer complaints – in advance of the forthcoming Legal Services Bill. Mr Hudson, who succeeded Janet Paraskeva at the beginning of the month, joins two other chief executives in trying to keep a sense of unity under an overall Law Society umbrella brand.


Described in the accountancy press as having ‘a tough business head’, Mr Hudson should be well suited to the task. He qualified as a solicitor in 1980 and specialised in criminal and child protection law at Manchester firm Goldberg Blackburn & Howards (which later became Pannones) until 1987 when he moved to an in-house post at the Yorkshire Building Society. But his future lay in commerce, not legal practice, as Mr Hudson took up the role of head of lending at the Britannia Building Society in 1992, three years later becoming operations director at Britannia Life before taking the top slot of managing director in 1996.


By 1998 he had moved to the Scottish Media Group as chief executive of its publishing division; the following year he was appointed a director of SMG. Before leaving the group to take on the role at ICAS, he sold its Glasgow newspapers to a US publisher for a reported £216 million.


It is a CV of a man who appears to enjoy getting things done. So what would he like to accomplish in his first weeks at Chancery Lane? ‘I don’t feel impelled to demonstrate activity in a vain attempt to show worth and value. It is important to think, to listen and to consider carefully where we go.’


However, he does give solicitors some insight into his immediate proposals for directing the new model Law Society representation branch. ‘We need to set a business plan and a budget, and we need to be clear about organisational change. We need to set a budget that is sustainable – and there are clear views from our members about what is expected of us in being efficient and in being a contemporary organisation.’


Top of Mr Hudson’s agenda will be setting out a menu of membership services and raising the profile of Chancery Lane’s lobbying activities. He points to recent successes as examples of what the Law Society can achieve when it focuses its energies – for instance, campaigns relating to the stamp duty land tax, inheritance tax, home information packs, the Carter review of legal aid, and knocking back Crown Prosecution Service attempts to bar sole practitioners from receiving its instructions.


But Mr Hudson views the Law Society’s representation arm as being more than a lobbyist. ‘It is there to meet its members’ needs. That means more than just being a cipher for an expression of those needs. There are times when the Law Society has to weigh all information and then offer leadership.


‘I take it as an absolutely fundamental issue that this is a membership organisation, that the council is the manifestation of those members and so working with them, recognising the membership organisation’s ability to decide what it wants to do, is absolutely critical.’


Paying for the activities of the representation side of the Law Society might create a new definition of member (President Fiona Woolf has already indicated that additional fees could be considered for some services) and bring it into potential conflict with the regulation branch. In relation to the former, Mr Hudson predicts no immediate change, but he attaches a caveat. ‘At the moment, I see the existing membership definition remaining. There is an important point about what “at the moment” means, because clearly there is a sense of everything being in the melting pot. But I would be surprised if we were to see radical change to that definition in the short term.’


As to whether the existing system of setting and collecting the practising certificate fee will remain, Mr Hudson is cautious, hoping for a collaborative approach with Law Society Regulation. Ideally, he would like to agree the fee through discussions between the Law Society President of the day and the chairmen of the Regulation Board and the Consumer Complaints Service (CSS) (with the chief executives advising). ‘The authorised regulator in the Legal Services Bill is the Law Society,’ he says, referring to the umbrella brand. ‘Without in any way diminishing the prime importance of operational autonomy for regulation and CCS, it is the Law Society through its democratic structures that sets the PC fee.


‘The Chinese walls are there to ensure the absolute prohibition of council members interfering with the operational activities of regulation… the Law Society cannot set a PC fee that is designed to pre-empt or interrupt the work of regulation. It will only do that once before the legal services board comes down like a ton of bricks. We have a council that is far, far too sensible to do anything like that. Clearly, regulation must have the resources and monies it needs to meet the regulatory expectations of the public oversight body.’


But that approach could clash with the Regulation Board’s stated desire to be master of its own future by effectively setting the PC fee itself, with the representation side having no right of veto (see (2006) Gazette, 27 July, 22). That model could see representation being separately funded through a combination of an agreed levy with the government (as set out in the legislation) for law reform work, and a possible membership fee supplemented by profit from commercial activities.


Indeed, commercial income might add a further dimension to the position as Mr Hudson says profits derived from business activities should benefit all stakeholders under the Law Society umbrella, including regulation. ‘It must be the entire Law Society because it is the entire Law Society that owns and controls representation, regulation and currently the CCS. So if we can generate income in a fair and sensible fashion, it is to everyone’s advantage. Which is why in the commercial arena I will look to have that done as efficiently as possible. If I can make savings I will take those savings.’


Relations between the council and the senior staff were at times strained under Mr Hudson’s predecessor over the issue of how Law Society policy was set and implemented. The new representation chief executive is clear that he views the council as dominant, but he sees its relationship with the senior bureaucrats as a partnership. ‘As a membership organisation, it is for council to set policy; it is not for the chief executive. But the chief executive, the management team and the council have to work together, because all of us will be working to a broad set of common goals and ambitions. It should be a co-operative, collaborative process, subject to the fundamental truth that in a membership organisation, the council is supreme.’

One of the most pressing issues facing the council and Mr Hudson is establishing the representation focus of the Law Society. There has been a long-standing view at certain City-based and large regional commercial law firms that they can look after their own lobbying and representational needs.


Mr Hudson recognises the dilemma: ‘If we are frank, there are some activities and services that magic circle and City law firms don’t necessarily need from the Law Society. It would be superfluous to offer things that they don’t need.’



But there are areas that do benefit the larger firms, he says, citing international lobbying for audience and practice rights. ‘The quality and stature of English law is vitally important for the City,’ he says. ‘There are other categories of firms that will have a bigger shopping list of things they want from the Law Society – and I would look to meet that. But in doing that, I would be looking to make informed sensible choices about the equity of approach across the piece.’



Having been out of legal practice for nearly 15 years, it will be a challenge for Mr Hudson to convince lawyers and law firms that he has not lost touch with their professional lives, whether they be City or regional commercial giant, high street generalist or niche specialist. It is a point he readily acknowledges. ‘I see my role as being about management. I am not planning to espouse my half-baked opinions about legal practice. I am not setting myself up as being an expert on being a solicitor in 2006. But I do know what it is like – I’ve been through the pain. I know what it is like to sit the exams and I know what it is like to have clients and targets and to appear in court.’



And he plans to do a crash course to learn about practice in 2006. ‘The chief executive of the Law Society can’t do this job stuck in his office. It is really important to get out and to listen and talk to members because that will help me to take better informed decisions in a management context and to be part of a process that offers policy options to the council.’



But Mr Hudson does not envisage a new nanny state for the profession; he is adamant that Chancery Lane should adopt a non-intrusive stance with solicitors. ‘The vast majority of our members have more important things to do than worry about the intricacies of the Law Society. They have careers to build, they have clients to service and businesses to run. I am going to be part of a team that tries to ensure that the Law Society doesn’t get in the way of people, and that recognises their relative priorities.’

He will get an opportunity in a fortnight’s time to see how well that message is received when he makes his first major public appearance, at this year’s Law Society conference.



For conference details, visit: www.annualconference.lawsociety.org.uk or e-mail: annualconference @lawsociety.org.uk.