Law Society special general meeting

Minutes of adjourned special general meeting

Minutes of the adjourned special general meeting (SGM) of the members of the Law Society held on 16 May 2002, at 2.30 pm, in the Society's Hall.

The Vice-President, Carolyn Kirby, was in the chair.

Quorum

The vice-president declared that there were more than 50 members of the Law Society present and that there was therefore a quorum.

Shakir Hussain (London) raised a point of order on whether the vice-president should chair the meeting.

The vice-president said she had been aware of the possibility of a challenge and the grounds for it and had raised, at the council meeting on the previous day, whether she should chair the meeting.

The council had by an overwhelming majority indicated that it wished her to continue in the chair, and she had decided to do so.

Minutes

The minutes of the first session of the SGM had been published (see [2002] Gazette, 28 February, 39).

It was resolved, on a show of hands, that the minutes be confirmed as correct.

Opening remarks

The vice-president stated that the business of the adjourned SGM was to continue consideration of six resolutions moved by Imran Khan at the meeting on 31 January (the original meeting).

The meeting had been adjourned on that occasion to the present date to enable the possibility of mediation between the Society and Kamlesh Bahl to be explored.

The adjourned meeting was a continuation of the original meeting.

The vice-president confirmed that, as announced at the original meeting, she would be directing postal votes on all the resolutions before the meeting.

The vice-president said that as the adjourned meeting was a continuation of the original meeting and the six resolutions were being debated together, it would normally be the case that no member could speak again on the resolutions.

However, to assist the meeting she had decided to permit Imran Khan and the deputy vice-president to address the meeting and to report, as far as was possible, on the proposed mediation.

Further consideration of resolutions 1-6

Imran Khan addressed the meeting.

He indicated that he or one of his supporters would be proposing a number of amendments to certain of the resolutions, and would be withdrawing resolution 6, on the understanding that the Employment Tribunal decision would be on the Society's Web site.

The proposed amendments were as follows:

Resolution 1 - at the beginning of the resolution, insert 'following the report of the independent inquiry'.

Resolution 2 - in line 3, delete '30 June 2002' and replace with '31 October 2002' and delete 'May 2000' in line 5, replacing it with '16 May 2002'.

Resolution 3 - substitute the following wording for that originally printed: 'That the meeting requests that the Council of the Law Society resolves, pending the outcome of the independent inquiry, (a) to cease paying any further costs on behalf of Robert Sayer and Jane Betts, as they were both found to be personally liable for race and sex discrimination by the tribunal; and, (b) to suspend Robert Sayer from the Council of the Law Society.'

Mr Khan spoke at some length highlighting instances of racial discrimination within the legal profession, and stressed that in his view discrimination was institutionalised within the practices and structures of the Law Society.

He said the new diversity structure which had been introduced within the Society would not address these deep-seated problems and indeed could do a disservice to ethnic minority members of the profession.

Dealing with the specifics of the Kamlesh Bahl case, Mr Khan said the Society had failed to respond to the findings of the tribunal as a reasonable employer; it had not apologised to Ms Bahl, it had not established an independent inquiry and it had not suspended Robert Sayer.

A full inquiry would expose the reality of what went on within the established structures of an institutionally racist organisation.

He said that a number of ethnic minority solicitors were so concerned about these issues that they were contemplating petitioning the Master of the Rolls for the creation of a new, separate Law Society, for those who believe in equality.

The vice-president pointed out that she had been advised that the proposed new resolution 3 (as set out earlier) should be disallowed because paragraph (b) would go beyond the scope of the original motion.

The remainder of the new resolution was effectively the same as the original resolution 3.

Peter Williamson, the deputy vice-president, addressed the meeting and clarified the position relating to mediation.

He said that a pre-meeting to discuss mediation had recently taken place at which the parties had agreed the following statement: 'On 9 May a successful pre-mediation session took place.

An agreement to mediate was signed and arrangements are in hand for the mediation itself to take place.'

He said the parties had agreed that no further statements should be made about the mediation and, therefore, he would not be able to expand on the agreed statement.

Mr Williamson reminded the meeting that the council opposed all the resolutions before the meeting (now resolutions 1-5 since resolution 6 had been withdrawn).

The council opposed resolutions 1 and 2 since they pre-empted the outcome of the litigation.

Resolution 3 was opposed since Robert Sayer and Jane Betts had acted on behalf of the council and it was incumbent on the council to stand behind them in the appeals, which had been launched only in the light of legal advice.

The principle of resolution 4 on the publication of costs information was accepted, and Mr Williamson pointed out that the Society had never sought to conceal the costs of the Kamlesh Bahl affair, now running at more than 2 million.

Finally, in relation to resolution 5, Mr Williamson said the council had publicised the steps it was taking to address discrimination issues.

A consultation paper would be issued and formal adoption of the new diversity and equality policy was likely to take place in July.

Nigel Dodds (Blyth), a council member, moved that the meeting be adjourned sine die with a view to the mediation taking place, and with a view to it being reconvened perhaps when that mediation has taken place.

Richard Parker (City of London), a council member, seconded the adjournment motion.

The vice-president said Mr Khan had requested that she indicate the implications of the adjournment motion.

An adjournment, sine die, was effectively putting the meeting on one side in perpetuity, that is to say, it would not be reconvened.

She indicated that Mr Khan, as the mover of the resolutions under consideration, had the right to speak against the adjournment, and invited him to do so if he wished.

Mr Khan opposed the adjournment motion, saying that the issues were much wider than the Kamlesh Bahl case and, therefore, should not be postponed pending the mediation.

There would still be calls for an inquiry even after the mediation had taken place.

On a show of hands, by 61 votes to 28, it was resolved that the meeting be adjourned sine die.

The vice-president indicated that in these circumstances, no postal vote could take place.

The meeting was accordingly adjourned, sine die, at 3.10 pm.