Peace breaks out in Law Society's Murrayfield clash on ABS policy

Published on Sunday 28 March 2010 22:51

AFTER weeks of increasingly-bitter infighting among lawyers in Scotland, it appeared to some on Thursday that peace had finally broken out.

News filtered out that the two warring factions in the dispute over the Law Society's policy on alternative business structures were to sit down and talk, offering a potential end to the damaging schism developing among the legal profession.

The development came at a special general meeting of the society, held at Murrayfield Stadium, that promised to be every bit as bruising as the battles witnessed on the famous turf.

Certainly, the Law Society of Scotland was happy, insisting the move to the negotiating table by the big firms and the Scottish Law Agents Society was a result of both sides "pulling back from the brink" and aiming to present a united front on the Legal Services Bill reforms currently making their way through parliament.

Supporters of ABS suspected the momentum of the rebellion had been somewhat diminished by Fergus Ewing's dramatic announcement that the sections of the Legal Services Bill that were causing so much angst had been dropped.

Nonetheless, the society's opponents immediately branded the meeting a farce. They claimed the thousands of proxy votes, carefully cultured by them over the past weeks in preparation for the day had been disenfranchised on a technicality that allowed proceedings to be adjourned solely using the votes of those solicitors that happened to be in the room.

In the end, the adjournment was carried by 76 votes to 33 with 12 abstentions.

Mike Dailly, who had set the tone for the battle even before it had begun, claiming the society's referendum on its ABS policy had been "rigged", said it had been a "dark day" for the Scottish legal profession.

"Democracy has been shamed, denied and abused by a small elite of 70 members, against the clear voice and will of 3,200 members against Tesco law," he said.

"The council of our society has lost all credibility today. You can deny a democratic vote by filibuster or technicality, but the only loser is the reputation of our legal profession which now lies in tatters after this affront to democracy".

His evident anger was echoed by John McGovern, the president of the Glasgow Bar Association, who insisted the adjournment had been managed so as to avoid an embarrassing defeat for the society.

"The Law Society realised it wouldn't win," he said. "Its policy on ABS was set to be overturned on a proxy vote by approximately two to one. The meeting was adjourned at 11 o'clock – it was 45 minutes old at that stage – for a comfort break. That comfort break lasted 30 minutes. There were around 100 to 120 solicitors at the meeting and the Law Society, I suspect, realising that most of those solicitors were council members or supporters moved to adjourn the meeting, thus avoiding the embarrassing vote loss."

He added: "They realised they were going to lose the vote, and all of a sudden we have an adjourned meeting. We wanted a vote, but we weren't allowed it.

"There is a debate constitutionally about whether what they have done is right. I don't see how you can adjourn a meeting to a date that is not fixed."

Later, a Law Society spokeswoman insisted the adjournment had been fair and fully within the terms of the body's constitution. "All of the proxy votes cast are still valid and will be held until the meeting reconvenes," she said. "The society's members will be informed of when the meeting will be reconvened."

For his part, Law Society president Ian Smart also insisted the developments at the meeting had been above board, and that the adjournment and subsequent announcement of negotiation had come as a result of the contributions made by members on the day.

"It became apparent as the speeches were going on that the two sides were not maybe as far apart as we had thought," he insisted. "There was a willingness to compromise on the part of the law agents, and to be fair, more of a willingness to compromise on the part of the big firms."

"Both sides looked over the precipice and backed off," he added.

McGovern denied he had been party to any agreement, but insisted that, notwithstanding the events of Thursday, his organisation, and allies, stood ready to take part in negotiations with the society's council and the big firms. But for him, he noted, the concerns still remained, despite the decision by Ewing to drop the controversial provisions in the bill.

"I am still concerned about the representative function of the Law Society, because to my view, the last few months have shown that they have a real problem representing this profession," he said. "That is still a live issue as far as I am concerned."

The managing partner of Dundas and Wilson, Alan Campbell, called for solicitors to engage with the dialogue, given that the ABS legislation is on the cusp of being brought into force. "Hopefully no-one wants the Law Society to be disengaged from this entirely and a sensible compromise will be reached," he said. "I'm sure the profession want to be influencing the debate."

Meanwhile, Robert Pirrie of the WS Society, expressing a personal view, said the profession would have to "wait and see" what emerges from the negotiations and the referendum, due to be called on 7 April. He said: "The referendum question asks if solicitors support ABS 'as long as there are appropriate safeguards'. The problem is a lack of consensus on what is meant by 'appropriate safeguards'.

"Some think this undermines the value of the question, others that it simply reflects the stage we are at. Negotiations may help fill in some of the blanks."

With the implicit threat by the Scottish Government that the legal profession can expect to see the Legal Services Bill reforms brought in, no matter if they are fully on board or not, every lawyer in Scotland will hope that the blanks are filled in.