Society states that independence of the legal profession is essential
Ian Smart, president of the Law Society of Scotland, said:
From the very outset of discussions on alternative business structures, which has since led to the profession voting in favour of allowing ABSs in principle and the introduction of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill in September 2009, the Society has maintained that the independence of the legal profession is fundamental.
The arrival of the Bill has not changed that view. In its response to the Bill and during parliamentary evidence sessions, the Society insisted that independence is essential and that the role of the Lord President should be strengthened to ensure that this remains the case. The Society will continue to lobby changes to section 92, which has been raised as a concern by both the Society and its members.
The Bill as it currently stands provides ministers with powers to make regulations which could specify the criteria they considered appropriate for appointability and the number of lay members on Council and can prescribe a minimum number or proportion if they believe such a prescription is necessary. Before these regulations are made, Scottish ministers would have to consult with Council, the Lord President, OFT and other consumer bodies. That would only be the case if the Society failed to implement section 92 properly. Only the Society can appoint any lay members to the Council, not Scottish ministers. It should be remembered that most other professional bodies have for many years appointed lay members because of the qualities, expertise and talent they bring, including the GMA (General Medical Council, GDA (General Dentists ' Council), ICAS (accountants), RICS (surveyors) and the BMA (British Medical Council), which although is a representative body also has large patient representative committees.
It may be difficult to accept any input by politicians into how the Society functions, despite it being a body set up by statute, but the 20% lay membership on Council, which will become part of the Society's obligations, was decided by Council members and has been agreed as appropriate by ministers. This is despite continued pressure from the consumer lobby for somewhere between 50% to 75% of lay membership on the Society's council. Lay members have also been on the Society's regulatory committees for around 20 years and all now have 50% lay membership. Non-regulatory committees are predominantly made up of practicing solicitors.
None of this represents a handing over of independence of Scotland's largest legal profession and taking an antagonistic stance does not help negotiate any long term benefits for the profession.
Many of our members are also members of other societies and organisations which represent their specific interests, such as the WS Society, Glasgow and Edinburgh Bar Associations, SLAS, Solicitor Advocates Society, Family Law Association, In-house Lawyers Group and bar associations, and which we support and work with where we can. They in turn lobby the Society and indeed parliament and government according to their members' interests. I would suggest though that, even without the 1980 Solicitors Act which demands that the Society represent the solicitors profession and the public interest in relation to the profession, a professional body of any standing has to have the ability to regulate its members to ensure that the profession can maintain its reputation, high standards, integrity and ethical standing among its client base and the wider public as well as provide wide-ranging professional support and represent its members' interests, as the Society does, at all levels of government in Scotland and the UK, overseas, and to other professions and stakeholders.
It's regrettable that it has taken until this stage for some of our members to engage in this debate, however we are continuing to encourage solicitors to contribute via the series of roadshows, which have been sell-outs with more than 700 members booked to attend, as well as respond to the current consultation which asks all members which types of business structures the profession might want to see and asks for views on how they would be regulated if permitted, and attend the SGM later this month.
4 March 2010
