On the stump

Anthony BoganIf I were asked to predict the single greatest threat to the profession as it approaches the millennium, it would be this: the loss of our self-regulating status.

Consider the following statements:-- 'In attempting to look after the interests of the profession and look after the interests of the public, I can tell you from bitter experience...you seldom please anybody and, more often than not, offend everybody' (President of the Scottish Law Society 1994).-- 'My government will introduce legislation to make solicitors accountable to the public' (suggestion for the next Queen's speech made to me by a senior QC and MP this month).-- 'We have a year during which to put our house in order' (Legal Services Ombudsman 1996).-- 'Many restrictions now exist in self-regulation' (John Hayes 1996).And, therefore, I have proposed that we take the lead and reform the way in which our profession is governed before self-regulation is wrenched from our grasp in a blaze of adverse publicity.

For this I am accused of living in a 'fantasy world'.

Truly I must be a 'wild man'!The writing is on the wall.

Time is running out.

I have met with senior MPs from all parties over the last month.

The message from all is quite clear: the Law Society, in its present form, is seen from the outside as a shambles.

It commands respect from neither the profession nor the public who we serve; if we do not take steps to provide transparency between the duel roles of regulatio n and representation quickly, external regulation will be imposed upon us.

This is not 'fantasy'.

It is the real world in which we live.

Make no mistake.Should we acknowledge the problem now, and take steps to put our own house in order in a manner more beneficial to solicitors? Or should we brush it under the carpet and hope -- against all odds -- that we can persuade public opinion, manoeuvre government and convince the media industry that all will be well if we let sleeping dogs lie?There is no doubt in my own mind: the duality of the Law Society as both regulator and representer will not survive.

These conflicting roles need to be separated.

I would prefer this separation to be instigated and controlled by the profession -- not the government.

The model format for our own regulatory body must be the General Medical Council (GMC).

Its Council consists of a majority of medical practitioners elected directly by the medical profession.

It costs each practitioner about £100 per annum.

A model for the representative arm could be taken from the British Medical Association or even the American Bar Association.

Both are respected and effective professional representative bodies.

They speak intelligently and are listened to by the opinion formers; they have 'clout' when it is necessary.If elected, I will initiate this fundamental but necessary reform.

I will ensure that it is fair to both the public and the profession.The Legal Services Ombudsman, the Consumers Association, the Solicitors Association, the British Legal Association, prominent MPs, legal journals and even our out-going Secretary-General are uncomfortable with the status quo.

Who is comfortable? Judging from their manifesto, both Tony Girling and Martin Mears.

I regret that both fail to see the immediacy of the problem we face.

The profession has a wealth of experience at its disposal and if we are seen to acknowledge the legitimate concerns of the public and the profession and take steps to set our house in order, it must follow that confidence will return for the benefit of all.Whether we like it or not, there will be a separation between regulation and representation and it will happen before the millennium.

Solicitors can either lead the way or suffer the inevitable consequences.I would be asking any Presidential candidate two questions: first, do you believe in self-regulation? Secondly, do you accept that the profession's interests have been neglected in recent years? To maintain a system of self-regulation and provide effective professional representation there will have to be a separation of function.Tomorrow or yesterday.

The choice is yours -- it is still your profession.

Do you want to keep it that way?Tony Girling, Phillip Sycamore, Michael MathewsThe Candidates for the whole ProfessionTONY GIRLING -- PHILLIP SYCAMORE -- MICHAEL MATHEWSWhat do we stand for?We stand for:---- rebuilding respect for the profession;-- a united Law Society, at the service of the whole profession;-- co-operation not confrontation;-- honest debate not propaganda.The profession has had a year of conflict and contention, of setting solicitor against solicitor.

This has to end.We offer a partnership between the Law Society and its members to restore the profit and pride of solicitors.We are from a 24 partner multi-office high street practice in East Kent (Tony) a 3 partner firm in Lancashire (Phillip) and the largest firm in the City of London (Michael).

We invite all solicitors to join our partnership for the whole profession.What are our plans?We have a practical policy platform dedicated to changing the Law Society's culture to a service organisation.

Not changing its culture to submission to the will of one or two personalities.

We offer a new style and tone of leadership.We mean business.

Therefore we have a business plan.

Targets -- not hollow promises of quick fix solutions -- are needed in the Law Society.

To measure progress and appraise performance over the next 12 months and beyond.ExpenditureWe will keep a tight rein on Law Society expenditure -- learning from the lessons of the past.Our targets include:--Agree totally new budget strategy including efficiency savings of 5% pa, expenditure reductions, and commercial income generation targets: 31 December 1996Service and CommunicationWe will heed your criticisms.Our targets are:--Agree with new Secretary General action plan to improve all aspects of member service over 2 years: 31 December 1996Audit existing means of listening to members' views and devise member communication strategy: 31 October 1996Set standards of clarity brevity and relevance for all Law Society communications: 30 November 1996Practical Help for SolicitorsWe will:---- actively go out to the profession with practical help to solicitors individually and to firms and legal departments-- promote the quality and caring firms-- help solicitors with IT-- promote realistic careers advice for all students-- encourage the removal of discrimination barriers within the profession-- promote sympathetic help for solicitors in honest efficiencyOur targets include:--Offer 5000 small firms the opportunity of joining 'practical help' networks: Over 3 yearsIntroduce the High Street Starter IT kit to at least 500 small firms: Over 1 yearFacilitate a national information service by at least 20 graduate careers advisory services on manning levels/employment prospects for solicitors: 31 December 1997Trust and ReputationWe will:---- lead the campaign to increase public support for solicitors as trusted respected independent professionals-- promote the profession's services-- repair damage to relationships with outside bodies-- create recognition of the value and status of employed solicitorsOur target is to devise overall PR strategy within 3 monthsCampaigningWe will:---- lead a populist campaign making the case to the public for the benefits of Legal Aid - targeting to launch the campaign by 31 July-- negotiate hard with the Government and the Opposition about the future structure of Legal Aid-- not let up in campaigning for rights of audience for employed solicitors-- press for easier qualification for higher rights of audience for all solicitorsNo giving up on conveyancingWe will:---- inform the public on what it costs to do a good job-- help solicitors to charge proper fees for quality work-- negotiate firmly with the lenders for separate fees for buyer and lenderOur targets include:--Deploying existing staff, set up conveyancing 'Help Unit' and publish (if possible) a 'Broadcaster' of costs and trends in conveyancing: 1 January 1997Not forgetting the largest firmsWe will:---- promote the role of the largest firms with their substantial contribution to invisible earnings-- aim to delegate more regulation to firms themselvesOur targets are:--Establish liaison arrangements with largest 500 firms: 30 April 1997Please ask for a copy of our Business Plan.WE WILL TELL THE TRUTH.

IT IS NOT ALWAYS SIMPLE OR EASYMartin Mears, Robert Sayer, David KeatingWhen this article ap pears the electorate will already have been deluged with manifestos and literature from the various candidates.

There is more than enough material to enable people to make an informed decision about the leadership they want at the Law Society.At this late stage, then, what more can I usefully say? In the first place, I beg my colleagues to read the manifestos.

We are all lawyers and accustomed to assessing evidence and weighing arguments.

I am more than content to have our case compared with that of our opponents.

In our detailed manifesto we have set out to vindicate our record step by step.

I think we have succeeded in doing so.

But judge for yourselves.Please read Mr Girling's manifesto.

Please read it carefully.

Is there anything of any substance in it? The opening paragraph conveys the flavour of the whole document: 'We will change the Law Society's culture to a service organisation, helping solicitors in the fast changing world we all face'.

Yes, yes, apple pie and motherhood but what does it actually signify? Mr Girling's prospectus amounts to no more than business as usual (or rather business as it was in the good old days before Mears and Sayer).But, in reality, no-one liked the good old days.

Otherwise Sayer and I would not have been elected in the first place.

Why should anyone want to return to them? Mr Girling and his supporters tell us, in effect: 'Things may have been bad under Buggins but at least Buggins was well in with the Government and the consumer bodies and enjoyed the respect of the public and press'.What is the truth? The idea that in the old days the Law Society was a kind of formidable eminence grise to Government is the purest fantasy.

One need only mention the Society's past record in Legal Aid negotiations.

Up until 1995 there were three successive years when Legal Aid rates were not increased at all.

And the infamous Legal Aid Green Paper appeared before Mears and Sayer were more than a bad dream.What of 'restoring respect for the profession' (as Mr Girling puts it)? Well, of course, our opponents have spent the last 12 months crying 'stinking fish'.

By now, no doubt, they may even believe their own propaganda.

But no one else does.

Whenever I talk to judges, politicians or opinion formers their comment on events at the Law Society is on the lines: 'About time they had a shake-up.

But isn't it all getting you down?'I will say nothing about Mr Bogan's platform.

For the reasons set out in my full manifesto, it is plainly not in the realm of the possible.

An electorate of lawyers should not waste five minutes on it.Tony Girling has been a member of the Law Society's Council for sixteen years.

During that time he worked hard for the profession and I have no difficulty in acknowledging his contribution.

But I think he himself would hardly deny that he is a Chancery Lane man through and through, deep dyed in its culture.

He represents the discredited past.During the last 12 months I could have had an easy time.

I could have been a ceremonial President in the traditional mode.

No one forced me to wage war on the old attitudes, the old habits and the old abuses.

I could have spent my period of office 'constructively'.

My Council colleagues might have said: 'This Mears wasn't such a bad chap after all.

What a pity we misjudged him at the beginning.

Quite a sound fellow really.

Let's give him an unapposed second term.

Make him an honorary Buggins'.

If anything like that had been said I would know that I had utterly failed the solicitors who elected me.The process of real change has started.

You c an tell from the squeals of indignation.

We shall not lose our nerve.

Neither, I am sure, will the profession.Please give me your vote.

Vote for my colleagues Robert Sayer and David Keating also.

Reforming the Law Society is not a job which can be done single handedly.