QuorumThe President said there were more than 50 members of the Law Society present and therefore declared a quorum.Minutes of preceding general meetingThe minutes of the second adjourned special general meeting held on 17 May 2001 had been circulated in the Gazette (see [2001] Gazette, 1 June, 43).It was resolved that the President be authorised to sign the minutes as correct.Election of auditorsDeloitte & Touche had been nominated for election as auditors and, as this was the only nomination which had been received, the President declared Deloitte & Touche duly elected.Election of council members from constituenciesThe President said that in 13 of the 15 constituencies where council seats fell vacant in rotation there had been no more candidates than vacancies and accordingly the candidates in those constituencies had been elected unopposed.

Their names and constituencies were: No 2 The City of London -- Catherine Fiona Woolf; No 3 Holborn -- Alexander Fraser Whitehead; No 8 the City of Westminster -- Richard West Henchley; No 16 Hampshire and the Isle of Wight -- Andrew Howard Arthur Caplen; No 18 West Country and Gwent -- Nancy Lillian Nagle; No 22 Warwickshire -- Kevin Joseph Martin; No 28 Central Lancashire and Northern Greater Manchester -- Edward Nally; No 31 Yorkshire -- Thomas Michael Napier; No 32 Derbyshire and East Staffordshire -- Andrew Alan Wilson; No 33 Nottinghamshire -- David Richard Payne; No 36 Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire -- Richard John Hegarty; No 37 Hertfordshire -- Graham Brian Newton White; and No 39 Suffolk and North Essex -- Jonathan Wynne Ripman.In two constituencies -- No 12 Inner Sussex and No 26 Merseyside and District -- there had been more candidates than vacancies and accordingly voting papers had been sent to members of the Society in the constituencies.

The President called upon Simon Hearn, of Electoral Reform Services, to give the election scrutineer's report on the elections.Mr Hearn said that in constituency No 12 Inner Sussex, the total number of valid voting papers had been 338.

Alexander Stewart McCulloch had received 161 votes and Patrick Wilfred Richards had received 162 votes.

Nine voting papers had been rejected by the scrutineers.

The President thereupon declared that Patrick Wilfred Richards had been elected as council member for constituency No 12 Inner Sussex.Mr Hearn said that in constituency No 26 Merseyside and District, the total number of valid voting papers had been 709.

Laurence Julian Bennett had received 350 votes and Fiona Bruce had received 333 votes.

Twenty-five voting papers had been rejected by the scrutineers.

The President thereupon declared that Laurence Julian Bennett had been elected as council member for constituency No 26 Merseyside and District.On behalf of the meeting, the President paid tribute to the council members retiring from the constituencies -- namely John Sneary of cons tituency No 17, Dorset, Robert Venables of constituency No 8, the City of Westminster and Sam Wilson, of constituency No 39 Suffolk and North Essex -- and thanked them for their services to the profession.Election of non-constituency council membersThe President said that as part of the reform programme, 25 new non-constituency council seats had been created.

Elections to these and the existing 14 seats would normally be by ballot.

Ballots would be taking place in a number of the seats where the designations had been settled and for two existing seats which were falling vacant by rotation, namely the seat held by Peter Urwin, representing local government, and the seat held by Lucy Winskell, representing young solicitors, both of whom were retiring from the council.In several of the new seats, only one candidate had been nominated and would accordingly take office unopposed.

The President therefore declared that the following members had been elected: Government Legal Service -- Edward Brian Solomons; Law Management Section -- Simon Young; Local Government Group -- Eric Roger Bowden; and Probate Section -- Helen Judith Clarke.The President said two other seats falling vacant by rotation would be filled in due course by the council, namely the seat designated education and training held by Cyril Glasser and the seat now designated criminal defence, held by Helen Cousins.

Three non-constituency council members were leaving the council, in addition to those previously mentioned, namely Lesley Griffiths, representing prosecution matters, Karen Mason, representing commerce and industry, and Pauline McBride, representing EU matters.Resolution 1 (annual report)The President moved the reception of the annual report (excluding the accounts).

The Vice-President, David McIntosh, seconded the motion.

The President put the resolution to the vote and by a show of hands it was resolved that the annual report of the council be received.Resolution 2 (accounts)The Treasurer, Kenneth Byass (Loughborough), moved that the accounts signed by the auditors be received.

Robin ap Cynan (Shrewsbury), a council member and a member of the finance sub-committee, seconded the motion.

The President put the resolution to the vote and it was resolved by a show of hands that the accounts signed by the auditors be received.Resolution 3 (amendment of the by-laws of the Society -- compensation)The Treasurer moved the following resolution: 'That enabling powers be granted to the council to introduce a scheme for payment of compensation to the firms or employers of council members and non-council solicitor members of boards and committees and that the amendments to the by-laws of the Society set out in appendix II be made.'John Pickup (Cheshire and North Wales), a council member, seconded the motion.

John Franks (West London) asked for confirmation that the powers would cover the payment of compensation to sole practitioners and non-employed solicitors.

Vivien Stern (London) opposed the proposal, and reminded the meeting that similar proposals had been rejected in the past.

The Society's expenditure was going out of control, and this was a further example of it.The Treasurer responded.

The proposal was of a purely enabling nature and there was no provision in the budget at present for compensation of the kind referred to.

The council had concluded that following the reform and reorganisation of the Society the time was appropriate to bring the proposal forward.

In answer to Mr Franks, the Treasurer said compensation would be payable to sole practitio ners and non-employed solicitors, but there were fiscal implications which needed careful examination.As the motion was of an enabling nature, council members were not disqualified from voting.

The President put the resolution to the vote and on a show of hands it was carried.Resolution 4 (amendment of the by-laws of the Society -- reception of postal vote results)Michael Mathews (City of London), a council member and a past President, moved the following resolution: 'That it should no longer be necessary for the results of a postal vote to be presented to an adjourned general meeting and that the amendments to the by-laws of the Society set out in appendix III be made.'Mr Mathews said the proposal would rectify an anomaly in the Society's by-laws.

Angus Andrew (West London), a council member, seconded the motion.The President put the resolution to the vote, and on a show of hands it was carried.Resolution 5 (amendment of the by-laws of the Society -- submission of statements in council elections)Peter Williamson (Holborn), the Deputy Vice-President-elect), moved the following resolution: 'That where any election to the council is contested the candidates should have an additional period of seven days following the close of nominations in which to submit any statement and photograph for circulation with the voting papers, and that the amendments to the by-laws of the Society set out in appendix IV be made.'Mr Williamson said that likewise this proposal would rectify an anomaly in the by-laws which caused a good deal of inconvenience to candidates in council elections.

Angus Andrew seconded the motion.

The President put the resolution to the vote and on a show of hands it was carried.Resolution 6 (investigation of complaints)The following motion had been lodged under by-law 15(1) by 83 members of the Society: 'That the meeting requests the council of the Law Society to limit forthwith the investigation by the Law Society of complaints against members of the solicitors' profession to those involving serious professional misconduct, and in particular to cease dealing with matters of inadequate professional service' (IPS).David Savage (Farnborough), a council member, moved the resolution.

He drew attention to the scale of expenditure on the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS), noting that next year £29 million would be spent on the OSS out of a total budget of £80 million.

He said he had no quarrel with the need to deal with genuine complaints, but he said that too much was being spent on dealing with trivia.Robert Sayer (Central and South Middlesex), a council member and past President, seconded the resolution.

He drew attention to the burden placed on firms, especially smaller firms when having to respond to complaints.

Although he acknowledged that the Law Society's council had confirmed that the motion even if passed could not be carried out, he said ways and means could be found of doing so.The Treasurer said that even if dealing with IPS complaints were removed from the role of the OSS, the resulting savings would only be around £4 million a year.

He added that it was essential that clients who were unhappy with the service given by their solicitor should have someone to complain to.Richard Hegarty (Peterborough), a council member, opposed the motion.

He disagreed with Mr Sayer and said that from his experience as a member of the compliance and supervision committee, most complaints were not trivial.

If the Society did not deal with IPS complaints the government would impose its own regulato ry structure to do so, which would be more expensive and beyond the control of the profession.

The council confirmed that it had a statutory obligation to deal with IPS complaints.Arnold Rosen (City of Westminster) supported the motion.

He was concerned that OSS staff sat in judgement on solicitors and he said that it would be more appropriate for retired district judges to be recruited to do this work.

He did not believe that it was necessary to spend £4 million performing the council's statutory duty and asked what were the hidden costs.

He also expressed the view that small firms were vulnerable to pressures imposed by the system.Alison Parkinson (Holborn) opposed the motion, saying that all firms made mistakes and mistakes had to be dealt with.

If the Society did not do this, the government would, and it would be more expensive.

However, she would support a review of the IPS jurisdiction exercised by the OSS.The President outlined progress on the proposed new complaints redress scheme, which was part of the reform process on which the Society was now consulting stakeholders.

This he said would deal with many of these issues.Vivien Stern said the motion would bring solicitors into line with the medical profession.

As a sole practitioner, she was aware of the worry that complaints caused professionals, even on trivial matters.Paul Venton (Croydon and North Kent), a council member, said solicitors had special rights and powers, and it was therefore right that they should be subject to an onerous regulatory regime.

The Society had to regain moral legitimacy, and it would detract from this if it abandoned this responsibility.Neil Jopson (Milton Keynes) supported the motion.

He said the £4 million which had been mentioned could be better used in local complaints schemes with local law societies.John Pickup said that while it was regrettable that the Society had to deal with these complaints, it was necessary.Michael Garson (London) said the complaints system should concentrate on breaches of the practice rules, rather than pander-ing to consumerism.

Decisions on complaints were often poor quality and compared unfavourably with those made by courts.Lord Phillips of Sudbury (London) opposed the motion.

He said he had considerable experience of how complaints arose.

It was unrealistic to think that, if the IPS function was hived off to another body, it would be better or cheaper.

The Lord Chancellor would certainly use his reserve powers to impose a new system on the profession and confirmed the considerable political interest in the Society's role in regulation.The President put the resolution to the vote and on a show of hands it was lost by 27 votes to 65.

Denis Cameron, a council member, then demanded a postal vote on the question in accordance with by-law 29, and as this was supported by 26 members, the President confirmed that this would take place.Resolution 7 (complaints involving negligence)The following motion had been lodged by the same 83 members as had lodged resolution 6: 'That the meeting requests the council of the Law Society to resolve that the Law Society shall not involve itself in any complaints involving professional negligence which are already covered by professional negligence insurance.'Neil Jopson moved the resolution.

He said members of other professions were treated with dignity and had the right to have claims against them determined by a court, but this was not to be available to solicitors.

He said the Human Rights Act was not being followed in that this guaranteed the right to a fair trial and the OSS would not provide a fair trial.

The Law Society should stand up for its members against the government on this matter.Denis Cameron (Blackpool), seconded the motion.

The small claims court, which was user-friendly and cheap, should be used for small negligence claims.

Decisions could be taken at the OSS by untrained caseworkers.

The insurance implications of the OSS dealing with negligence also had to be addressed.

He said the upper limit for claims would not remain at £5,000.Angela Deacon (Stratford on Avon), the council member representing sole practitioners, opposed the motion, supporting the work at the OSS.Vivien Stern agreed that solicitors' clients could go to court.

The Lord Chancellor had raised court fees, but that was, she said, not the profession's fault.

If a solicitor was sued for negligence he or she could call for help from the insurer.Richard Hegarty said there was nothing new about the OSS dealing with negligence, since by definition every case of negligence involved inadequate professional service.

He explained that the OSS approached these cases in a different way to a court.

They received evidence and dealt with damages, as a straightforward IPS claim, reducing bills or awarding compensation.

Contrary to what had been stated by previous speakers, he said caseworkers did not make decisions -- they made recommendations which would, with the parties' comments, go to an adjudicator or a sub-committee of the compliance board.Arthur Weir (Holborn) said that although IPS procedures at the OSS might be performed more cheaply, and effectively, nevertheless members should read the question under debate.Robert Sayer then referred to a paper agreed that morning by the council on the new redress scheme, which would make explicit that the OSS did deal with negligence, if under the £5,000 limit.

He said the Human Rights Act and commonsense would show that this was a wrong approach and asked if a solicitor made admissions to the OSS, what would insurers make of the situation?.The President put the resolution to the vote, and on a show of hands it was lost by 28 votes to 55.

Denis Cameron then demanded a postal vote, and as this was supported by 26 members, the President confirmed that the postal vote would take place.

In answer to a question from Mark Sheldon (City of London), a past President, the President said that based on recent experience the cost of a postal vote would be between £40,000 and £50,000.Resolution 8 (level of practising certificate fee)The following resolution had also been lodged by the same 83 members: 'That the meeting requests the council of the Law Society to ensure that the practising certificate fee for2001-2002 remain at the same level as the PC fee for 2000-2001, that is £495, and for 2002-2003 to reduce it to a sum not exceeding £400.'The resolution was moved by Robert Sayer, who said it was related to the previous two resolutions, insofar as the cost of the OSS was the largest part of the Law Society budget.

He did not accept that only £4 million would be saved by ceasing to deal with IPS matters; a more realistic figure would be 50%.

When he had served as Treasurer, the Society had adopted a 'top-down' budget, whereby a sensible amount of money was identified, which was then shared among directorates.

Anything that could not be afforded was not done.

This contrasted with the previous 'wish list' approach, whereby desirable objectives were identified and then the money found for them.

For 2002, the Society would be spending £80 million, and the PC fee would be going up from £495 to £650.

A new £20 million computer system had also been ordered.

If the PC fee was frozen at £495, the Society could raise more money if it wanted by increasing income from commercial services.Denis Cameron seconded the motion, saying this was supported by members in his constituency.The Treasurer then said that when Mr Sayer had been Treasurer and the PC fee had been set at £495, the Society had incurred a deficit of £4.7 million.

In 2001 a deficit of £5 million was also projected.

Nobody liked to pay more, but the Society had to perform its statutory duties at a realistic cost.

The fact was that if the Law Society opted out of IPS, a system would be imposed for which solicitors would still have to pay.

Section 47 of the Access to Justice Act also had to be borne in mind.

This provided that no part of the PC fee could be used by the Society for representation work.

He added that the present computer system had reached the end of its useful life and would in any case have to be replaced.

The new system would be a single, integrated, system which would be a great improvement.Anthea Grainger (London), chairwoman of the Association of Women Solicitors (AWS), said a professional body could not be run on a cost-cutting basis, without proper reserves.

The AWS had experienced similar difficulties.

It was important, in the light of recent events, to move forward.

The AWS would support an increase in the PC fee to help unify a fragmented profession.Vivien Stern supported the motion.

She said many sole practitioners were being driven out of the profession for financial reasons, and the PC fee imposed by the Society was part of this.

She also suggested that regionalisation was an area of unnecessary and excessive expenditure.The President put the resolution to the vote and on a show of hands it was lost by 26 votes to 55.

Denis Cameron demanded a postal vote, and as this was supported by 26 members, the President confirmed that the postal vote would take place.Any other businessArnold Rosen asked whether there was a policy in respect of solicitor members of staff voting at Law Society general meetings.

The President said there was no separate policy but the matter could be examined.Vivien Stern asked by whose authority the new logo had been adopted and the cost.

She also asked by whose authority it had been decided not to appeal against the Watford tribunal decision, and whether that decision would be circulated.

The President said he would disallow the latter two questions, as it would not be appropriate for confidential issues, which had been considered by the council, to be dealt with at a general meeting.Janet Paraskeva, the chief executive, said that council had agreed to replace the old coat of arms which was inaccurate in that it included representation of Scotland and Ireland.

The new logo on display was a stylised version of the new coat of arms which would be in use in a full colour version within a year.

The total cost of the re-branding exercise was about £250,000.In expressing her dismay at the afternoon's proceedings, Ann Richardson (London) asked that the Society review whether sole practice should continue, particularly in view of the expense this sector was causing the Society.Vote of thanks to PresidentIan Buxton, immediate past President of the Sheffield and District Incorporated Law Society, moved a vote of thanks to outgoing President Michael Napier.Mr Buxton paid tribute to the major achievements of Michael Napier in steering through the reform programme, e specially lay membership of the council and the move to a new system of office-holder elections.

These reforms had been confirmed by the profession.

The Society was also now seen as strong by government.

Mr Napier had been an example of leadership, and had been ably supported by the Vice-President and Deputy Vice-President as well as the chief executive, to whom he paid particular tribute.Michael Napier responded.

He paid tribute to the efforts of many people in steering through the reform programme during his year of office.

He thanked the staff of the Society for all their hard work, and in particular the chief executive, Janet Paraskeva, who he said had already made an enormous impact in the relatively short time she had been with the Society.

Mr Napier said he had been supported throughout the year by his wife, Denise.Mr Napier concluded his remarks by extending his best wishes to David McIntosh, the new President, whom he commended to the meeting as one who would be a worthy leader of the profession.Transfer of badge of officeThe President then performed the ceremony of transferring the badge of office to his successor, David McIntosh.

Mr McIntosh thanked his family and his partners for making it possible for him to take up the presidency.Looking forward to the coming year, Mr McIntosh said that the Society's future would see it continue as a reforming organisation, responding to clients' needs.

The Society had put its problems behind it and had regained respect and credibility with stakeholders and others.The Society was a reinvigorated organisation with a modern system of governance and an inclusive council, and was ready both to regulate and to represent solicitors and seek law reform.David McIntosh then invested Carolyn Kirby with her badge as Vice-President.

Mrs Kirby responded briefly, and then invested Peter Williamson with his badge as Deputy Vice-President.

Mr Williamson also replied briefly.Finally, Janet Paraskeva, the chief executive, presented Michael Napier with a memento of his period of office as President and reassured Ann Richardson and the meeting that the afternoon's proceedings simply reflected historical difficulties.

She reassured the meeting that the future and the new team of office holders faced a Society full of optimism and confidence.The President declared the meeting closed at 4.50 pm.