Local support

Roger Bowden says there is much to recommend in the proposed reforms - especially its aims at best practice, which would be instantly recognised by local government lawyers

Working in an environment of service provision and regulation, covering a wide range of functions and a variety of customers, is something which local authorities have been doing for more than a century.

And it is something which they will be doing, in different ways perhaps, for many years to come.

From my perspective, therefore, it is a realistic goal to aim to create a practical structure for a Law Society acting as a model regulator, an effective advocate for the whole profession, and a leading voice on law reform.

It is not only a worthy goal but also a considerable challenge.

The proposal for a larger Law Society Council to facilitate better representation for a diverse profession is attractive, not least to a group of 3,300 local government solicitors which formerly had two non-constituency seats, and lost one of them - in somewhat unsatisfactory circumstances - last year.

The president and his team have set themselves the task of restoring interest in the Law Society among the profession, recognising the different needs and aspirations of the various sectors - a far better word than 'sections'.

That interest, once restored, will need a worthwhile outlet - and an enlarged council would provide that.

An appropriate blend of constituency and sectoral representation would offer the most effective way of achieving full representational credibility.

A truly representative council would also have a legitimacy as an electoral college and could be an effective proving ground for potential office-holders and board members.

Whether there is a need for lay membership of the council is less clear.

Lay people (non-councillors) have a role in certain aspects of local government, but as appointees to committees rather than as members of the council.

A similar approach, with lay people serving at board level, would add value to that work without detracting from the representative nature of the council.

There is little by way of detail in the consultation paper about the functions of the council.

Its functions are broadly stated as electing the office-holders; approving strategic priorities; determining policy; setting the budget; and delegating authority to oversee the Law Society's strategic plan.

Allocating responsibilities on the basis of policy making being the province of the council, and implementation and day-to-day decision-making being that of the main board and the functional boards, accords broadly with the local authority experience.

However, the strategic objectives which, it is proposed, should be one of the responsibilities of the functional boards to agree, must conform to the policy framework established by the council.

It has long been recognised in local government that the council, which might vary in size from around 40 councillors to around 100, is not an efficient body for making detailed orday-to-day decisions.

An extensive scheme of delegation of the council's authority to committees,sub-committees, and individual officers has been the traditional solution.

The key to the acceptance of delegation, and to its effectiveness in democratic terms, is that delegation must take place against a background of a clear policy framework, properly defined terms of reference, and appropriate budgetary control.

The concept of a main board acting as a cabinet in support of the council, with functional boards below it is, therefore, not something which need be regarded as novel in a multi-role representative organisation.

The diagrammatic representation in the consultation paper would be recognisable instantly to my local authority colleagues as a traditional council committee structure.However, it is essential that the framework within which it operates has the key elements described earlier.

Whether the council would be content to rely on an annual report by way of holding the main board to account seems improbable, especially in the early days of a new structure.

If, as is proposed, the council is to delegate its authority to the main board, and onto the functional boards, the council, on behalf of the profession at large, must surely have more clearly defined mechanisms for monitoring and scrutiny than can be gleaned from the consultation paper proposals.

The composition of the main board is not directly comparable to the local government position.

In our terms it is a mixture of councillors and paid officers.

However, it is not so far removed from the model of governance found in the corporate world and ought, therefore, to be able to draw on that body of experience in finding effective ways to work.

Remuneration is not mentioned specifically in relation to the main board, though it is in relation to the functional boards.

It is becoming recognised in local government that people with the talent and commitment required of councillors in leading positions may only be able to participate if they are remunerated suitably.

The solicitors' profession may have to face up to the fact that the Law Society can only be effective and efficient if it makes it possible, financially, for its able members to participate fully in the work of the boards.

Overall, there seems to be much to be said in favour of the structure proposed in the consultation paper.

It would have been reassuring to see some reference to the future arrangements in respect of the groups.

The groups are a cost-effective and efficient way of meeting the needs and aspirations of the members of the profession they represent.

It would be a false economy if the modest core funding which they enjoy were to become a casualty of a reformed Law Society.

But, the broad structure has the capability to meet the future needs of the profession.

The devil may be in the detail.

I sincerely hope not.

Roger Bowden is chairman of the Law Society Local Government Group and secretary and solicitor of Wyre Borough Council in Lancashire.

The views expressed are his own and not necessarily those of the group.