Report comment

I was on the Law Society Council for just two years from 2003 until 2005. I was surprised by a number of things. Firstly, I was the only person who had a clear idea of what he wanted, namely to get on the Education Committee for a return to a centrally set, anonymously marked exam for all solicitors, plus a very detailed plan to achieve it. Just everybody else was there "to do good", whatever that might mean. There was a vacancy and I was the only candidate. I did not get the job. I thought that was an important mistake of principle. However much you might dislike the person and / or his policies if there is a vacancy and he is the only candidate you have no choice but to give him the job if being a council member is to mean anything. If his or her electorate don't want him or her there, then it is for the electorate to vote for someone else, and not for the "in crowd" at Chancery Lane to take that decision for them.

Secondly, I felt strongly that there was a fundamental division within the law society between those solicitors who had done well financially, eg senior partners of large, prestigious firms, / City solicitors doing lucrative company / commercial legal work untroubled with consumer complaints, and solicitors who were, relatively speaking, struggling financially, eg essentially High Street solicitors doing bread & butter legal work like Wills, Probate, Conveyancing, Crime, Matrimonial. The former were very happy with the current situation. The latter were desperate for change.

For what it is worth, my view then and now is that the Law Society President should be in the job for as long as he or she has the confidence of the Law Society Council, and that Council Members should be able to continue in their posts for so long as their electorate continues to send them to Chancery Lane.

Given that the Law Society is in effect a trade union or guild I profoundly disagreed with the presence of non solicitors on the Law Society Council and at the top of the management tree at Chancery Lane. I know perfectly well from my contact with clients that what they want is an absolutely perfect job at rock bottom prices or even "pro bono" (they often think that they are doing you a favour giving you the work, even if it is free or loss-making). It was entirely clear to me that a huge number of firms, (running into the thousands), were in terrible financial difficulty and that not a single non-solicitor council member and not a single non-solicitor member of the management team at Chancery Lane cared one jot, let alone had a meaningful plan to remedy the situation. Sadly, many of the wealthy solicitors cared just as little, and that raises an important issue: Is it possible for a solicitor from a City firm who is never, ever going to face a complaint to the legal services ombudsman really part of the same profession as those doing legal work for ordinary consumers? I've worked in both environments and my answer is an unequivocal "no". Somehow the really wealthy need to be stopped from getting on the Law Society Council, or kept to a very small number. They are the enemy of every hard up solicitor on the High Street. Their concerns are not the concerns of the residential conveyancer or duty solicitor. Furrowed, concerned brows notwithstanding, the seriously wealthy and / or City solicitor have no real understanding of what it costs to deal with a consumer complaint, let alone any idea what might be done to turn a catastrophic situation on the High Street around. In fact, they'll stop anyone from trying. I know, I've been there and felt their power.