While it may be perceived to be a little anomalous for Law Society Council members to extend the nature of the debate from the Council chamber to the columns of the Gazette, a rejoinder to the letter of Tim O’Sullivan might be of interest to the profession (see [2008], Gazette, 27 November, 11).

I believe that all Council members are acutely aware of their responsibility to their constituents and of the fact that the Law Society can only operate effectively if those members interface with, and reflect the views of, their professional colleagues as vigorously as possible.

I do not think I was alone in experiencing concern that the membership committee proposals failed to grasp the issue in a satisfactory manner. The abolition of seats for specific practice areas simply to cut down numbers, and the retention of every single geographical seat in circumstances where it was conceded within the report that there were anomalies and that further reorganisation work would be necessary in the future, was not, in the view of many members, a stable or permanent solution.

From my perspective, the rejection of the membership committee’s report was not a sign of complacency. Rather, I suspect many remain willing and eager to explore a regime which would lead to more effective Council members supportive of, and supported by, their constituents.

Mike Williams Council member, civil litigation