Minutes of the Law Society AGM
Minutes of the annual general meeting of the members of the Law Society held at the Society's Hall on 18 July 2002, at 2.30 pm.
The president, David McIntosh, was in the chair.
He stated that there were more than 50 members of the Law Society present and declared a quorum.
The notice convening the meeting was taken as read.
Minutes of adjourned special general meeting
The minutes of the adjourned special general meeting held on 16 May 2002 had been circulated (see [2002] Gazette, 13 June, 47) and were taken as read.
It was resolved that the president be authorised to sign those minutes as a correct record.
Election of auditors
The president said that Deloitte & Touche had been re-elected unopposed as auditors and on behalf of the meeting thanked them for their work.
Election of constituency council members
The president declared that the following had been elected unopposed as council members for the constituencies shown:
Constituency no.
1, Central and South Middlesex: Alexander Stewart Atchison;
Constituency no.
2, The City of London (two vacancies): Michael Robert Mathews and Richard John Innes Parker;
Constituency no.
7, South London: Eileen Meredith Pembridge;
Constituency no.
19, South Wales: Simon Anthony Rhys Mumford;
Constituency no.
31, Yorkshire: Margaret Mary Clarissa Andrews;
Constituency no.
38, Norfolk: George Ian Francis.
The president said that although the notice of the meeting had indicated that the vacancy in Constituency no.
1, Central and South Middlesex was scheduled to be contested, it transpired after the notice had been circulated that one of the candidates was not validly nominated, and, therefore, Mr Atchison, who was the only remaining candidate, was elected unopposed.
The president said that in seven constituencies more candidates had been nominated than there were vacancies and accordingly voting papers had been sent to all members in those constituencies.
The president called upon Simon Hearn, of Electoral Reform Services (ERS), which had acted as election scrutineer, to read the scrutineer's report on these elections to the meeting.
Mr Hearn reported as follows: in Constituency no.
5, West London, 412 voting papers had been received, of which 17 had been rejected as invalid.
Lucy Ann Scott-Moncrieff had been elected following a single transferable voting process.
In Constituency no.
6, North Middlesex, 194 voting papers had been received, of which six had been rejected as invalid.
Michael John Jennings Singleton had been elected by 100 votes to 88.
In Constituency no.
8, The City of Westminster, 457 voting papers had been received, of which 29 had been rejected as invalid.
Susan Jane Nelson had been elected following a single transferable voting process.
In Constituency no.
15, Berkshire and North Hampshire, 347 voting papers had been received, of which 30 had been rejected as invalid.
Matthew Vincent Gauntlett had been elected following a single transferable voting process.
In Constituency no.
23, Birmingham and District, 538 voting papers had been received, of which 26 had been rejected as invalid.
Derek Ian French had been elected following a single transferable voting process.
In Constituency no.
27, Manchester, Salford, Stockport and District, 619 voting papers had been received, of which 20 had been rejected as invalid.
Marie Jennifer Jacqueline Leeming had been elected following a single transferable voting process.
In Constituency no.
30, Northumbria, 646 voting papers had been received, of which 10 had been rejected as invalid.
John Nigel William Dodds had been elected following a single transferable voting process.
The president thereupon declared the following to have been elected to the council:
Constituency no.
5, West London: Lucy Ann Scott-Moncrieff; Constituency no.
6, North Middlesex: Michael John Jennings Singleton; Constituency no.
8, The City of Westminster: Susan Jane Nelson; Constituency no.
15, Berkshire and North Hampshire: Matthew Vincent Gauntlett; Constituency no.
23, Birmingham and District: Derek Ian French; Constituency no.
27, Manchester, Salford, Stockport and District: Marie Jennifer Jacqueline Leeming; Constituency no.
30, Northumbria: John Nigel William Dodds.
The president said that, owing to a defect in the original voting paper and subsequent communications difficulties which had led the chief executive to conclude the election process was vitiated, the election in Constituency no.
18, West Country and Gwent was to be re-started, and new voting papers would be sent to the members in the constituency as soon as possible.
On behalf of the meeting, the president paid tribute to the work done for the profession by those members who were now retiring from the council, namely Martin Mears (Constituency no.
38, Norfolk), Robert Sayer (Constituency no.
1, Central and South Middlesex), both past presidents of the Society, Jennifer Israel (Constituency no.
6, North Middlesex), Paul Pharaoh (Constituency no.
23, Birmingham and District), David Savage (Constituency no.
15, Berkshire and North Hampshire), Kenneth Byass (Constituency no.
35, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland), the Treasurer, Richard Ford (Constituency no.
18, West Country and Gwent) and Michael Franks (Constituency no.
5, West London).
Election of non-constituency council members
The president said that three non-constituency council seats were scheduled to become vacant by rotation at the conclusion of the meeting, namely the seat designated international practice, one of the commerce and industry designated seats and one of the seats designated ethnic minorities.
The council had re-elected Robin Healey to the international practice seat, following a recommendation from an independent interview panel and an open advertisement and nomination process.
The council had also formally re-elected Howard Trust (who had only been elected to the council in May, filling a casual vacancy) to the commerce and industry seat.
The president said that for the ethnic minorities seat, six candidates had been nominated, and therefore a ballot had taken place.
He called upon Mr Hearn to give the election scrutineer's report on this election.
Mr Hearn reported that 491 voting papers had been received, of which 33 had been rejected.
Kamlesh Bahl had been elected following a single transferable voting process.
Therefore, the president formally declared that Kamlesh Bahl had been elected as a Council member for one of the non-constituency seats designated ethnic minorities.
The president, on behalf of the meeting, thanked Mr Hearn and his colleagues at ERS for the work they had carried out in connection with the elections.
The president also paid tribute to the two non-constituency council members who were leaving the council, Maria Fernandes (ethnic minorities) and Jason Smith (Employment Lawyers Association).
Resolution 1 (annual report)
The president moved resolution 1 on the notice of the meeting, which was: 'That the annual report of the council be received.' Vice-President Carolyn Kirby seconded the resolution.
It was resolved, on a show of hands, that the annual report of the council be received.
Resolution 2 (accounts)
The Treasurer, Kenneth Byass, moved resolution 2 on the notice of the meeting, which was: 'That the accounts signed by the auditors be approved.' Robin ap Cynan, a council member and a member of the finance and resources board, seconded the resolution.
It was resolved, on a show of hands, that the accounts signed by the auditors be approved.
Resolution 3 (no confidence in the board)
The president said the next business was to consider resolution 3 on the notice of the meeting, which had been lodged by 47 members under by-law 15(1).
The same members had lodged resolutions 4-7.
Resolution 3 read as follows:
1.
The reforms of the Law Society in June 2001 led to the establishment of a main board with responsibility for taking key decisions and to operate as a cabinet government.
One of the objectives of the reforms was to provide solicitors with a body to represent their interests effectively and to provide greater accountability to the profession.
2.
The alleged racist comment of Carolyn Kirby, the vice-president of the Law Society, is such that it is conduct unbefitting the governing body of the profession, has damaged the standing of solicitors, brought the profession into disrepute and falls disgracefully short of the standards members are entitled to expect from those who should be providing leadership to the profession.
3.
The decision of the board of the Law Society to support Ms Kirby in spite of her alleged racist comment and contrary to the Race Relations Act (as amended) demonstrates the institutional racism within the main board.
4.
The meeting resolves that a vote of no confidence be passed in the members of the main board.
Before opening this item, the president said it was his intention as chairman of the meeting to direct postal votes on each of resolutions 3-7, all of which had been lodged by the same 47 members, since he considered the views of the profession should be sought on these matters.
The president said that the issues raised by the resolutions were sensitive, and he intended to use his powers as chairman to ensure the debate was lawfully and properly conducted.
Imran Khan (London WC1) moved the resolution.
He indicated that he was proposing also resolutions 4 and 5.
He said many versions of the truth could be presented, but the version of the truth coming from the Law Society perpetuated the status quo, namely that all was well with the organisation and the profession.
Another version came from black lawyers up and down the country who would find such an interpretation amusing, if it was not so offensive.
The leadership of the Law Society accepted its version of the truth, without thinking whether another interpretation could exist.
Nowhere was this approach more clear, Mr Khan said, than in the leadership's approach to the allegedly racist remarks of Carolyn Kirby, and the assumptions seemingly behind those remarks.
The main board should be held accountable for exposing the Law Society to the risk of further litigation.
Mr Khan said formal complaints had been lodged by minority ethnic groups with the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) and with the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS).
Mr Khan highlighted what he said were the difficulties and discrimination experienced by black people up and down the country, including in the profession.
He thought the Law Society did not want to debate these challenges, and it was shocking that at the special general meeting in January the issue had been adjourned.
Serving law and justice was what the Law Society was all about, yet the Law Society did not follow the law, was extravagant with the profession's money, lurching from one crisis to another, yet content to institute changes, even if only supported by a tiny percentage of the membership.
He said that previously he had not been interested in the Law Society, but the Kamlesh Bahl case had been a wake-up call, and had highlighted the institutional racism within the organisation.
Action was needed, even though mediation might resolve the situation between Kamlesh Bahl and the Society.
Mr Khan said the Society would be starting a new presidency with a leader who had been tainted with allegations of racism.
The reforms had failed, and had not achieved change at the heart of the organisation.
A fresh start was needed.
Mary Massih (London SE11) seconded resolution 3.
She said the Law Society should not look on the resolutions defensively but see it as a challenge and an opportunity to set a good example to other professions.
Michael Napier (Sheffield), a council member and past president, said that although he had great respect for Mr Khan and had always opposed racism there were real difficulties with accepting the resolution.
If passed, it would be a challenge to the integrity and standing of the first woman president of the Law Society and of the main board, which was elected by the council.
It would strike a blow at the heart of the Society's governance.
What would the consequences be? The authority and position of the new president and the main board would be undermined and there would be serious damage to the relationships with stakeholders and the press, including the Lord Chancellor, who took a close interest in the affairs of the Society.
Mr Napier said the reforms within the Society had not been cosmetic but were real, and had followed a consultation process under which a document was sent to every solicitor in October 2000.
Five key reforms had been proposed, two of which were the creation of a main board operating as a cabinet government and office-holders being elected by the council.
The reforms had been supported by 80% of respondents.
Later, there had been two SGMs and two postal ballots.
A lot had been achieved, and the resolutions would demolish the foundations of this achievement.
Mr Napier said a no confidence motion was serious and in parliamentary terms would mean the government was brought down.
He urged the meeting to reject the resolutions and work together rather than in an adversarial way.
Margaret Bailey (Liverpool), the council member representing trainee solicitors and legal practice course students, said she had been elected in October 2001 and had been encouraged by the support she had received.
The Law Society had launched a number of equality and diversity initiatives, including one to increase access to the profession, aimed at young people of school age, and this was the way to go forward.
Peter Williamson (Holborn), the deputy vice-president, said he wished to set out how the Society was tackling the promotion of equality and diversity in the profession.
The main board had established an equality and diversity sub-group chaired by the president, to take the lead on these issues.
Lord Ouseley, a former chairman of the CRE, had been appointed as a consultant on diversity issues.
With the assistance of this group, the main board had produced an equality and diversity strategy and framework, which had, following consultations, been formally approved by the council at the meeting earlier that day.
The drivers of these initiatives were the need first to comply with the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 and secondly to go further than the legislation required in becoming a leading exponent in the field of equality and diversity.
Senior staff had been recruited to ensure that discrimination was avoided and diversity promoted in the field of regulation and within the Society's own staff.
Overall, there was still a long way to go, although it had to be said that levels of participation by ethnic minorities in the Society compared well to the House of Commons.
Mr Williamson said it was important to concentrate on moving forward the Society's work in equality and diversity rather than for time and energy to be dissipated in looking backwards.
He invited members to vote against the resolutions.
Carolyn Kirby (Swansea), the vice-president and president-elect, briefly explained the background to the remarks which had been attributed to her.
She said she had been able to discuss with the Society of Asian Lawyers the offence these remarks appeared to have caused, and had also consulted Lord Ouseley.
As a result, she had issued a statement expressing sincere regret for the offence her remarks had caused, and she wished to reiterate that regret to the meeting.
Ms Kirby reaffirmed her support for the Society's equality and diversity strategy in all its applications, a strategy she said had been developed in discussion with a wide range of groups, and Mr Khan had a standing invitation to join those discussions.
Martin Mears (Great Yarmouth), a council member and past president, raised on a point of order whether debate generally was to be opened on all the resolutions which were before the meeting.
The president said he would be content, with the agreement of the meeting, for all the resolutions to be debated together, but it would be desirable for these to be formally moved and seconded as soon as possible, where this had not already been done.
Sadiq Khan (London WC1) a member of the Society's equal opportunities committee, thereupon moved resolution 6, which read as follows:
1.
In the light of the Society's approval of the alleged racist stereotypes employed by the vice-president, the failure of the Society to tackle the sex discrimination recently uncovered by the Association of Women Solicitors and the race discrimination reported to the CRE in June 2002 by ethnic minority lawyer's groups, the meeting resolves that an inquiry be conducted to determine whether: (a) the Law Society is institutionally sexist and/or racist and (b) it is complying with its statutory obligations under the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000.
2.
The inquiry shall involve a review of all the Society's activities including, but not limited to, its activities as a regulator, representative body and enforcement body.
The Law Society shall appoint a person to conduct the Inquiry from a list of persons nominated by the Society of Black Lawyers (in consultation with other groups representing women and ethnic minority lawyers).
3.
The inquiry shall report by 1 December 2002.
The findings of the Inquiry shall be made public.
Mr Sadiq Khan reminded the meeting of the main findings of the Employment Tribunal in the Kamlesh Bahl case, but said the resolution went wider than that case.
He said the resolution was not asking the meeting to conclude that all members of the Society are racist, or whether anyone should be suspended or dismissed; all it sought was an independent inquiry to explore whether there is institutional racism within the Society and, if so, to recommend how this should be dealt with.
He said the profession had been gradually opened to women and those who are not British citizens, and there was now an anti-discrimination rule in place, but it was not monitored or applied.
The Law Society had never, unlike the bar, conducted a 'Macpherson' audit.
Mr Sadiq Khan regretted that the profession was no longer able to elect its leaders, and that this would be left to the council, which was a long way from being representative.
He reminded the meeting of the definition of institutional racism in the Macpherson report, which was: 'The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic minority.
It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour, which amount to discrimination, through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping, which disadvantage ethnic minority people.' The Society had lost the trust of ethnic minorities and women and the resolution presented an open and accountable way forward.
Martin Mears, on a point of information, asked whether the independent inquiry referred to by Mr Sadiq Khan was the inquiry mentioned in the resolution.
Mr Sadiq Khan said paragraph 2 of the resolution made the position clear.
A member formally seconded resolution 6.
Lawrence Davies (London SE11) indicated that he wished to move resolution 7, which was in the following terms:
1.
Recent press reports have indicated a disturbing disregard by the Law Society in the use of funds levied from the profession, including, but not limited to the expenditure of:
l 70,000 on foreign travel for the president in 2001/02;
l 800,000 by way of penalties to the supplier for delay by the Law Society in meeting deadlines for a computer system it has recently purchased;
l 31% increase in the practising certificate fee in July 2001 from 495 to 650.
2.
Following the findings in the recent report by Lord Justice Thorpe of 'systematic ethnic bias' at the bar in its allocation of funding, the meeting resolves that an audit be conducted by external auditors (approved of by the CRE) to determine:
l Whether the Law Society is designating sufficient financial resources to tackling discrimination within the profession and the Society itself; and,
l That it is not designating financial resources to inappropriate projects or mis-managing its funds in a way which promotes or otherwise encourages discrimination.
The president said that paragraph 2 in the resolution needed to be clarified in respect of its reference to the cost of foreign travel by the president, and whether this was intended as a direct criticism of him.
If so, he would vacate the chair for the debate on this resolution.
After further discussion, and following an assurance by the president that he did not authorise the expenditure in question, the meeting indicated it was agreeable to the president chairing the debate on resolution 7.
Mr Davies then moved resolution 7, referring to views recently expressed by Ann Abraham, the Legal Services Ombudsman, that the Law Society should start listening to its stakeholders.
Dissent within the Society was stifled.
He referred to the review carried out by Lord Justice Thorpe of Bar Council spending, and suggested that the same pattern would be found in the Law Society.
The equality and diversity strategy which had been mentioned was cosmetic; it might be well-intentioned, but its effect in practice would have to be seen.
Minority groups had not been properly consulted.
Mr Davies asked how much money would be allocated to the strategy, and pointed out it was not a race equality plan within the meaning of the Race Relations Act, which would mean it could be reviewed by the CRE.
The Society should go back to the drawing board and prepare a race equality plan, involving and listening to ethnic minority groups.
Mr Davies said the American Bar Association had introduced radical reforms in this area, such as creating diversity awards and law school scholarships for minorities.
Karen Aldred (London SW13), Chairwoman of the Association of Women Solicitors (AWS), said the references to the AWS and AWS research in resolution 6 were erroneous and had been included without the agreement of the AWS.
Members formally seconded resolutions 5 and 7.
Resolution 5 read as follows:
1.
That the profession should, as a matter of principle, have the right to elect its own leaders in democratic elections.
This right was removed as part of the reforms of the Law Society in June 2001 and the meeting resolves that it must be reinstated with immediate effect.
2.
By-Laws 74(1) to (7) which were added on 26 June 2001 and which operate to deprive each member of the profession from democratically electing its leaders shall be deleted with immediate effect and by-laws 74-76A (election of officers, poll for election of office-holders and machinery for challenging office-holders elections) which were deleted on 26 June 2001 shall be reinstated.
3.
In by-law 14 (date for receipt of nominations), the words 'president, vice-president, deputy vice-president and' which were deleted on 26 June 2001 shall be reinstated.
4.
In by-law 17(1)(c) (business of annual general meeting), the words 'president, vice-president, deputy vice-president and' which were deleted on 26 June 2001 shall be reinstated.
The president asked for a seconder for resolution 4, so that this could be dealt with.
This resolution read as follows:
Although the Employment Tribunal decided in July 2001 that Robert Sayer was guilty of race and sex discrimination against Kamlesh Bahl, the Law Society has taken no action against Robert Sayer.
Accordingly, the meeting resolves that Robert Sayer be appropriately censured for his discriminatory actions against Kamlesh Bahl which is conduct:
l Unbefitting of a solicitor and of a leader of the profession;
l Damaging to the standing of solicitors and bringing the profession into disrepute.
A member seconded resolution 4.
The president said that resolution 4 dealt in critical terms with the position of an individual, Robert Sayer, and that he therefore proposed to give Mr Sayer or his representative the opportunity to speak immediately on the resolution, if he wished to do so.
He would also, in fairness to Mr Sayer and in his discretion, afford Mr Sayer latitude as regards the length of his speech.
Ronnie Fox (City of London) indicated that Mr Sayer had asked him to speak on his behalf to the meeting.
Nigel Dodds (Blyth), a council member, moved that the meeting proceed to next business.
Mr Dodds said his motion was limited to resolution 4, and was on the basis that any further discussion should be deferred until the conclusion of the mediation between the Society and Ms Bahl.
Any continued discussion would be unfair and prejudicial to the mediation process.
The president said he understood that what Mr Dodds was proposing was an adjournment of resolution 4, but the purport of the motion Mr Dodds had put was that the debate be closed and the resolution put to the vote.
After further discussion, the president ruled that the motion was to be interpreted under the by-laws as a motion to put the question to a vote forthwith and he would deal with it on this basis.
Mark Sheldon (City of London), a past president, on a point of order, suggested that, under the by-laws, the president had discretion to allow the case for Robert Sayer to be presented to the meeting before the closure motion was put to the vote.
The president said he would allow a speaker for Mr Sayer to do this.
Martin Mears addressed the meeting on behalf of Robert Sayer in relation to resolution 4.
After indicating his personal relationships with Robert Sayer and Kamlesh Bahl, Mr Mears said the resolution would, if passed, have a serious effect on Mr Sayer and his reputation.
It cast Mr Sayer as the villain of the piece and Ms Bahl as the heroine.
The findings of the Griffiths Inquiry were that Ms Bahl had acted as a bully.
The Employment Tribunal had said: 'In our judgement ...
Ms Bahl was not a witness of truth.
Where her evidence was independently corroborated, we accepted it.
Where it was contradicted by other witnesses, we rejected it.' Ms Bahl had never apologised to the complainants and had said her unfair treatment was caused by racism.
Mr Sayer was also entitled to be treated fairly, yet the meeting was being asked to censure him for acts of discrimination which the Employment Tribunal had held to be unconscious.
There was no connection between the findings of the tribunal on fact and the finding of discrimination, which is why there was an appeal.
Also, if Mr Sayer was to be censured now because of the findings of the tribunal, even though an appeal was pending, why should not Ms Bahl be censured in respect of the findings against her?
Anthony Bogan (Sunbury-on-Thames), a council member, proposed that resolution 4 be adjourned sine die.
A member seconded this motion.
The president said the effect of the motion to adjourn resolution 4 sine die was that the resolution would not come back unless the council directed.
As the resolution would not be put to the vote at the meeting, a postal vote would not arise, since this could only be directed or demanded after the vote by show of hands.
Imran Khan said he would not oppose the adjournment motion.
The president indicated that the adjournment of resolution 4 appeared to be the wish of the meeting.
The president said he would continue the debate on the other resolutions.
Michael Howells (Milford Haven), a former council member, said resolution 3 was in effect putting Carolyn Kirby on trial.
The allegation against her had been considered and rejected by the main board and the council.
There was no consensus that the remarks made by Ms Kirby were racist, and in fact she denied that this was the case.
There was insufficient evidence to support the charge, even on a balance of probabilities test.
Both he and Ms Kirby were Welsh and the Welsh had themselves suffered from discrimination in the past.
Malcolm Fowler (Birmingham), a council member, said a major structural change had taken place in the Society over the past year; a lot of good work was being done on may issues, and the resolution should not be allowed to derail it.
A member moved the closure in respect of resolutions 3 and 5-7, and this was seconded by another member.
Mr Khan indicated that he did not wish to reply to the debate, and the president thereupon put the closure motion to the vote.
The closure motion was carried by a show of hands, 108 votes in favour 33 against.
Votes were then taken on each resolution.
Resolution 3 was lost by 130 votes to 25.
The president directed a postal vote on this resolution in accordance with by-law 29, since he considered that the views of the profession should be sought.
The president said the adjournment of resolution 4 sine die needed to be confirmed by a formal vote, and accordingly on a show of hands, it was resolved that resolution 4 on the notice of meeting be adjourned sine die.
Resolution 5 was lost by 111 votes to 40.
The president directed a postal vote on this resolution in accordance with by-law 29, since he considered that the views of the profession should be sought.
Resolution 6 was lost by 114 votes to 40.
The president directed a postal vote on this resolution in accordance with by-law 29, since he considered that the views of the profession should be sought.
Resolution 7 was lost by 119 votes to 31.
The president directed a postal vote on this resolution in accordance with by-law 29, since he considered that the views of the profession should be sought.
The president said the arrangements for the postal votes would now be put in hand.
The council had appointed ERS as postal vote scrutineer and its report would appear in the Gazette in due course.
Publication of the report would complete the postal voting process and it was no longer necessary to adjourn the meeting to receive the results.
Any other business
The president said the next item was consideration of any other business which might, consistently with the charters and by-laws, be raised.
Nwabueze Nwokolo (Solihull) stressed the need for the Society to be leading in promoting diversity and inclusion.
She raised the problems experienced by ethnic minority solicitors in standing or voting at the recent election.
The president indicated that the Data Protection Act imposed restrictions which required ethnic minority solicitors to tick a box on their practising certificate renewal forms to receive mailings on the basis of their ethnicity.
Muzaffar Mansoor (Mitcham) highlighted difficulties he said he had experienced when there had been an intervention in the firm in which he was a trainee solicitor.
Ifath Nawaz (High Wycombe) drew attention to the short period of time allowed for responses to Law Society consultations, and the resulting frustrations, particularly for the Association of Muslim Lawyers, of which she was a member.
Gill Jordan (London SE10) said that although the problems of ethnic minorities should be addressed, the squabbling she had heard at this meeting was not the way forward; everybody would need to work together.
A member said that although some of the points made by Mr Khan earlier needed to be looked at, the issues Mr Khan had raised were still seen as part of the ongoing battle between Ms Bahl and the Law Society.
That battle had to end immediately, by whatever means.
Alured Darlington (Middlesex) said it was essential for the profession to work together in solving its problems in a non-confrontational way.
Ngozi Adi (London SW16) raised the problems of finding work in this country by foreign lawyers taking the qualified lawyers' transfer test (QLTT) and the lack of knowledge within the profession about the QLTT.
The president responded that these concerns would be brought to the notice of the training sub-committee.
The president stated that this concluded the formal part of the proceedings.
David Wyld, chairman of the City of London Law Society, moved a vote of thanks to the outgoing president, David McIntosh.
Mr Wyld highlighted two aspects of Mr McIntosh's presidential year in particular: one was an improvement in relationships between the Society and stakeholders, notably the Lord Chancellor and his department.
The other was in re-introducing the Law Society to practitioners across a wide front, notably those in the City of London, where this had been greatly appreciated.
The vote of thanks was carried with acclamation.
The president responded with some valedictory remarks.
He wished to restate the Society's absolute commitment to eliminating discrimination and promoting equality and diversity in all its aspects, and he was glad that a major focus of his year of office had been the development of the equality and diversity strategy and framework for action.
This document had been developed in consultation with a wide range of interests, including the CRE, and had been approved by the council earlier in the day.
Much work on implementing the strategy was already under way.
The president said that Carolyn Kirby had been fully involved in all these initiatives and as a practitioner in mental health law she had day-to-day experience of discrimination issues.
She had expressed regret for the offence caused by certain remarks and looked forward to moving forward constructively with minority groups.
The president referred to progress during the past year on developing pro bono schemes, the fight against the erosion of jury trial and the extremes of the Auld Report, promotion of solicitors' interests internationally, the establishment of a complaints redress scheme at the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors and the appointment of an independent commissioner.
The president concluded by wishing his successor Carolyn Kirby every success in her year of office and invested her with the badge of office as president.
The new president responded briefly and congratulated David McIntosh on the achievements of his year of office.
She said she was pleased to be the first woman president of the Society, and highlighted the increased participation by woman in the profession over the years, but stressed that she had not wanted to be chosen simply because she was a woman, and indeed one of her competitors for election as deputy vice-president had also been a woman.
Ms Kirby concluded by saying there was much to do in the coming year, and she looked forward to the support of Peter Williamson, the new vice-president, and Ed Nally, the new deputy vice-president, together with Janet Paraskeva, the chief executive, and her team and of course the council itself.
The new president then invested Peter Williamson with his badge of office as vice-president, with appropriate remarks.
The new vice-president responded briefly and in turn then invested Ed Nally with his badge of office as deputy vice-president, who likewise responded briefly.
The chief executive, Janet Paraskeva, invested David McIntosh with a badge as past president, saying that the badge was an innovation and was another 'first' for the Society and all past presidents would be receiving a badge at a ceremony in the autumn.
The meeting was closed at 5.50pm.
l As is the normal procedure, these minutes are subject to approval by the next general meeting of the Society.
It is regretted that some speakers cannot be identified due to audibility and transcription problems.
No comments yet