In reference to your negative editorial on the outcome of the postal ballot on Charter amendments (see [2008] Gazette, 30 October, 8), the powers that be at Chancery Lane should not assume that the majority who voted against the proposals were merely motivated by protectionist tendencies in difficult times.

I could see great benefits for non-solicitors in these proposals, but remain to be convinced that they would have benefited either solicitors or their clients. Certainly, solicitors have to adapt to the Legal Services Act, but your suggestion that the brand would not be watered down simply because affiliates could not have played any role in governance is nonsense. Most solicitors play no role in governance, but that does not detract from the status they enjoy in the eyes of the public as solicitors (a status incidentally the Society should be aggressively promoting post-Legal Services Act). The proposals seem to have been motivated mainly by a drive for revenue, which could be extremely short-sighted and quite possibly of limited benefit financially due to increased administration costs.

While it may be desirable for the Society to become ‘more commercially minded’, such initiatives need to be carefully thought through as unintended consequences can arise; the fate, for example, of all the former building societies that demutualised should act as a salutary lesson.

David Bird, Vice President, Hertfordshire Law Society Crane & Staples, Welwyn Garden City