Notices

Notices

The Law Society's special general meeting

Minutes of SGMThe meeting was held at the Law Society's Hall, Chancery Lane, London, on Thursday,13 December 2001, at 2.30pm.

The president, David McIntosh, was in the chair.The president said that more than 50 members of the Society were present in person and therefore declared a quorum.

The notice of the meeting was taken as read.Minutes of AGMThe minutes of the annual general meeting held on 12 July 2001 had been printed in the Gazette (see [2001] Gazette, 26 July, 47-49).

It was resolved that the president be authorised to sign the minutes as correct.Resolution 1 - requisition of a special general meetingThe president indicated that he would be directing a postal vote on all the resolutions which were before the meeting, since he considered that the views of the profession as a whole should be sought.Peter Williamson (Holborn), the deputy vice-president, moved resolution 1, which read: 'That the minimum number of members of the Society who may requisition a special general meeting be raised from 100 to 500, and that the amendment to the by-laws set out in appendix I [to the notice of meeting] be made.'Mr Williamson said the proposal reflected the huge growth in the membership of the Society since 1975, when the present figure of 100 was set; at that time, there were around 27,000 members, now there were around 106,500.

A five-fold increase was therefore sensible on arithmetical grounds, bearing in mind also that it would not be sensible to change the figure every few years.It was not impossible to gather 500 signatures, bearing in mind technological developments.

Electronic lodging of signatures would be in order under resolution 5 if this was passed.

The normal forum for discussion within the profession should continue to be the annual general meeting, and no change was proposed to the minimum number of 30 members who could lodge a motion for an AGM.

Only if a matter was exceptionally urgent and serious should an SGM be held, and in that event presumably the 500 signatures would be found.Michael Mathews (City of London), a council member and past president, seconded the resolution.In the ensuing debate, a number of speakers spoke to resolutions 2-4 as well as resolution 1.

Resolution 2 (demand for a postal vote at a general meeting) read: 'That it should no longer be possible for 20 members present at a general meeting (or 25% of those present, if this is less) to demand a postal vote on any question at that meeting, and that the amendments to the by-laws set out in appendix II [to the notice of meeting] be made.'Resolution 3 (demand for a postal vote following a general meeting) read: 'That the minimum number of members who may demand a postal vote within 28 days after a general meeting, on any question at that meeting, be raised from 100 to 500, and that the amendment to the by-laws set out in appendix III [of the notice of meeting] be made.'Resolution 4 (circulation of statements with postal voting papers) read: 'That where a postal vote is taking place members who oppose the position taken by the council on the issue which is the subject of the postal vote shall be entitled to have a statement (of not more than 1,000 words) circulated with the voting papers, and that the amendment to the by-laws set out in appendix IV [of the notice of meeting] be made.'Tim Readman (Plymouth), a council member, said the present figure had been fixed not in relation to the overall size of the membership but with a view to the number of signatures that could practically be obtained.

Even with modern electronics, it would be difficult to get 500 signatures.

All the proposals before the meeting were basically undemocratic.Michael Ellman (London) said he would be opposing resolutions 1-4 and would speak to all four at this point.

There was a 'control syndrome' creeping into the Society.

He cited his experience five or six years previously when he had gathered support for a postal vote on the remuneration of the president and this had proved extremely difficult.

This was democracy.

The proposal in resolution 3 to raise the number of members who could demand a postal vote after a meeting was excessive.

The number of members of the Society was irrelevant given the arrangement for meetings to take place at 2.30pm on a weekday when most practitioners were busy.

Why were the proposals being rushed through? The right of 20 members at a meeting to demand a postal vote was an essential democratic right.Michael King (Berks, Bucks and Oxon), a council member, opposed resolutions 1-3.

A few years previously, an SGM had been requisitioned on indemnity issues: would this be possible under the proposals?Christopher Digby-Bell (City of London), a council member, also opposed resolutions1-3.

He said it would be a sad day for the profession if these were passed, especially now that there was no direct right to elect its leaders.

The proposals were mistimed - the Society should be opening up debate within the profession rather than shutting the door on the members' views.

He had consulted the City of London Law Society, and a majority of the committee of that society took the view that 500 was too high.

The need to obtain 500 signatures would discriminate against minorities.Michael Heneker (London) queried the timing of the proposals, bearing in mind correspondence he had with the Society in September, and said they were being rushed.Patrick Allen (London), a council member, said he had misgivings about resolution 1, which would make it almost impossible to call an SGM.

This could impact unfairly on specialist groups.

Numbers were not relevant.David Wyld, chairman of the City of London Law Society, asked whether resolution 5 on electronic communications would come into force.

He said that the committee of his society had taken the view 500 was too high, and that 250 would be preferable.Nigel Dodds (Blyth), a council member, said that although the council should not seek to stifle democracy the figure of 100 was too small.

He agreed that 250 would be a preferable figure and proposed an amendment to resolution 1 to this effect, namely substitution of '250' for '500'.

Mark Sheldon (City of London), a past president, seconded this amendment.Mr Williamson indicated that in the light of points made in the debate, he was prepared to accept Mr Dodds's amendment and accordingly, with the agreement of the meeting, the debate continued on the resolution as so modified.Anthony Bogan (Surrey), a council member, said the proposals were aimed at reducing democracy and the rule of law within the Society.

He had instigated several postal votes, and this was a healthy thing.

The response to such votes was far greater than the attendance at general meetings.

There was a cost to postal votes, but this was the price of democracy and in any case expenditure of 50,000 was insignificant in the light of the Society's overall budget.

Members had lost the right to elect their leaders, and the only right they had left was to call for a postal vote on matters of fundamental importance.Simon Mumford (Cardiff), a council member, suggested in relation to resolution 3 that the amount of time available to call a postal vote should be extended from 28 to 56 days.Paul Venton (Croydon and North Kent), a council member, said many members in the local law societies in his constituency were horrified at repeated postal votes, which they considered to be a waste of money.

There were plenty of avenues for members to make their views known.At this point, the president said he would formally extend the debate to cover resolutions 2-4 as well as resolution 5, and invited Mr Williamson to introduce these resolutions while moving themContinued on page 30Continued from page 29formally.

The resolutions would be voted on separately, at the end of the meeting.

Resolution 5 (use of electronic communications) read: 'That it shall be a permissible option for all constitutional procedures which may be carried out under the by-laws to be carried out electronically, and that the amendment to the by-laws set out in appendix V [to the notice of meeting] be made.'Mr Williamson moved resolution 2, saying this was intended to rectify the anomaly that whereas 100 members had to write in after a meeting to demand a postal vote as few as 20 could do so at the meeting itself, or even 13 if only the bare quorum of 50 members existed.

Postal votes cost in the region of 50,000.

No change was proposed to the power of the chairman to direct a postal vote, and this would be the main vehicle by which the council would seek the profession's views on matters of importance.Mr Williamson said he was not minded to accept the suggested amendment from Mr Mumford (to raise the period for demanding a postal vote from 28 to 56 days) but he would be prepared to accept a similar amendment to resolution 3 to that accepted for resolution 1, namely that the new minimum number of members who could demand a postal vote after a meeting should be 250.So far as resolution 4 was concerned, Mr Williamson said that if a postal vote could only be called if a significant part of the profession wanted it, then it would be entirely reasonable for a statement of the views of those opposed to the council (of a maximum length of 1,000 words) to be circulated by the Society.

The by-laws at present contained no such right.Mr Williamson said that resolution 5 on use of electronic communications was not contentious but the wording of the related by-law amendment had been modified to make it technically better, as suggested by the chairman of the e-commerce working party, and the revised text had been distributed to members as they arrived for the meeting.

In answer to the point raised by Mr Wyld, Mr Williamson said the amendment would come into immediate effect in legal terms, but its practical implementation would depend on technical resources being made available, and this would be put in hand as soon as possible.Mr Williamson thereupon formally moved resolutions 2-5, with the amendment to resolution 3 which had been accepted, resolutions 2-4 being seconded by Mr Mathews and resolution 5 being seconded by Michael Franks (West London), a council member.Kenneth Byass (Loughborough), a council member and treasurer, reminded the meeting that there was a precedent for the figure of 500 being a trigger to the operation of constitutional procedures; this was the figure agreed earlier in the year in the context of the election of the deputy vice-president.

He maintained that the significance of general meetings was devalued if postal votes were always held following them.Paul Pharaoh (Birmingham), a council member, said there was considerable dissatisfaction within the Society at repeated postal votes, where 50,000 could be spent unnecessarily at the behest of relatively small groups.

The Society had to move on and address the issues of real concern to solicitors.Charles Fraser (City of Westminster), a council member, opposed resolutions 1-3, noting that in some public limited companies, Powergen, for example, as few as five shareholders could demand a poll, out of 600,000 shareholders.Mr Bogan said he had been concerned that in the recent postal votes following the AGM there had been no statements issued on behalf of the movers of the resolutions in question and had raised this with the Master of the Rolls, without receiving a satisfactory response.

If there was to be a postal vote on the proposals now before the meeting, as had been indicated by the president, it was essential that those who opposed them should be able to send out a statement.

Mr Williamson said that if resolution 4 was passed he would accept that it would be right for such a statement to be circulated, although there would have to be a tight timetable for the preparation of the document.Mr Sheldon said there was no simplistic definition of democracy; it was all a question of balance.

In practice, the president should always be prepared to direct a postal vote on any issue where there was real controversy.

He referred to the provision in by-law 29(4) whereby the secretaries of five local law societies authorised to do so could demand a postal vote (a matter on which no change was being proposed) and asked how such authorisation would be verified.

Mr Williamson said that this was not laid down in the by-law but the words 'authorised to do so' were there for a purpose and this imposed on the chief executive an obligation to verify the authorisation.

In practice, this would mean production of a minute of a meeting of each local law society committee, duly certified in each case by the chairman of that meeting.Vivien Stern (London) said that resolutions 2 and 3 ran counter to the aim of the reform process, which was to give the members a greater say.

There was a cost to holding postal votes, but this was the price of democracy.Mr Franks said it should be sufficient if the honorary secretary of a local law society was authorised by the officers of the society to demand the postal vote.

Time constraints would prevent a meeting of the committee.

He suggested that the quorum for SGMs should also be raised proportionately to the membership of the Society, since this would ensure that those who requisitioned a meeting would have to attend or the motion would be lost.Mr King asked for clarification of the mechanics of resolution 4, and whether a committee would have to be established to draw up the opponents' statement.William Boyes (North East London), a council member, said those who opposed the proposals misunderstood the democratic basis of the council, which was largely an elected body.Mr Franks stressed that if the proposals were carried this would ensure that SGMs would only be called on really important issues.

It would not be an insurmountable obstacle to obtain 250 supporters, even for minority groups.Edward Solomons (London), a council member, drew attention to a difficulty with the wording of resolution 4.

As drafted, this would give each of the opponents of the council's position the right to the circulation of a statement, which would not be practicable, and therefore it should be amended to refer to a joint statement.

Mr Williamson indicated that he accepted this amendment.James Rogers, President of the Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells and District Law Society, said he had been concerned at the original proposals, but was less so given the amendment which had been accepted, to substitute 250 for 500.Mr Williamson replied briefly to the debate.

He confirmed that he accepted Mr Solomons' amendment and suggested that Mr Bogan and Mr King should formulate by Friday, 20 December a statement on behalf of the opponents of the council's proposals, and this would then be circulated by the Society with the postal voting papers.

This was generally agreed by the meeting as a suitable way forward.Mr Williamson confirmed that he was not prepared to accept Mr Mumford's proposed amendment regarding the length of the period during which a postal demand could be made.

Mr Mumford then moved this as a formal amendment and it was seconded.Several members spoke further, but a member proposed, and it was seconded, that the question be put.

The president stated that the vote on whether the question should be put would relate to all the resolutions before the meeting.

The motion that the question be put was carried.The president then put resolution 1 (incorporating the amendment accepted by Mr Williamson) to the vote.

On a show of hands, this was carried by 43 votes to 22.

The president then directed a postal vote on the resolution, pursuant to by-law 29(1), since in his opinion the views of the profession as a whole should be sought on the question.Resolution 2 was then put to the vote and, on a show of hands, this was carried by 44 votes to 23.

The president directed a postal vote on this question, on the same basis as on resolution 1.Mr Mumford's amendment to resolution 3 was then put to the vote and, on a show of hands, this was lost by 42 votes to 22.

The president indicated that he was not directing a postal vote on the amendment.Resolution 3 was then put to the meeting and, on a show of hands, this was carried by 44 votes to 25.

The president directed a postal vote on this question on the same basis as previously.Resolution 4 (incorporating the amendment accepted by Mr Williamson) was then put to the vote and, on a show of hands, this was carried by 59 votes to one.

The president directed a postal vote on this question on the same basis as previously.Resolution 5 (with the by-law modified as presented by Mr Williamson) was then put to the vote and, on a show of hands, this was carried by 60 votes to one.

The president directed a postal vote on this question on the same basis as previously.The president announced that the arrangements for the postal votes he had directed would now be put in hand.

The voting scrutineers appointed by the council were Electoral Reform Services, and their certificate would complete the procedure, since it was no longer necessary, following by-law amendments agreed earlier in the year, to adjourn the meeting to receive the results of the postal vote.There being no other business, the president declared the meeting closed at 4.10pm, thanking members for their attendance.

Law society notices

Criminal litigation accreditation scheme - assessors requiredThe criminal litigation accreditation scheme (CLAS) was opened in April 2001.

Membership of CLAS qualifies solicitors to apply for inclusion on local duty solicitor schemes under the Legal Services Commission Criminal Defence Service Duty Solicitor Arrangements 2001.All solicitors who were registered with a local duty solicitor panel between 1 January 2001 to 1 April 2001 were automatically granted membership of CLAS stage 1, subject to eventual re-accreditation.

The re-accreditation programme is scheduled to begin with the first 130 applicants shortly, and will be carried on over the next four years.

Several assessors to mark the re-accreditation questionnaires and portfolios have already been appointed.To ensure the timely assessment of applications, the Law Society wishes to recruit around another 20 assessors and invites applications from suitably qualified solicitors.Applicants must be experienced criminal defence practitioners, be current stage 1 members of CLAS and be current duty solicitors.

Experience of assessing and selecting duty solicitors under the previous scheme would be an advantage but is not essential.

Applicants will be required to complete an application for re-accreditation, which will be assessed by the chief assessor.Remuneration will be paid for each portfolio assessed or interview attended.

Appointment as an assessor will entitle the member to free re-accreditation and membership of CLAS for five years, subject to the membership conditions.

Shortlisted applicants will be required to attend a training seminar in London before the appointment can be confirmed.

The appointment will be the subject of a service agreement between the individual assessor and the Society.Apply in writing enclosing a current CV by 8 February 2002.

For additional information, contact Simon Bullock, Panel Administrator, Professional Accreditation, The Law Society, Ipsley Court, Redditch, B98 0TD, tel: 01527 517141 ext: 3464, fax: 01527 500018, or e-mail: Simon.Bullock@lawsociety.org.uk

Chief assessor - continuing professional development The Law Society is inviting applications for the post of chief assessor - continuing professional development.

The chief assessor will be appointed on a three-year contract and will be expected to devote an average of 2.5 days per month in the first year and two days per month thereafter.

The chief assessor will be responsible for the recruitment and performance standards of continuing professional development programme assessors, and will assist with the development of policy relating to the standards of course providers and to continuing professional development generally.

As well as a knowledge of the Law Society's continuing professional development scheme, the successful applicant will be expected to have experience both of working with the solicitors' profession, and of working within a training environment, and knowledge of current practice and policy relating to training and development.

For additional information, contact Maxine Warr, team manager - continuing professional development, at the Society on 01527 504421 ore-mail: Maxine.Warr@Law Society.org.uk.

The deadline for applications is 15 February 2002.