“Having a representational body is vital for any profession. If it doesn’t survive, the big regional and City of London law societies will presumably take over that role but it is better that, given the society’s history and positioning, it does continue.
“In the past it has failed to articulate a wider strategy for the profession and it will need to develop a stronger sense of where it is going in all core areas.
“The problem the society has is that it is hugely more difficult to change an organisation with a long history than it is to start from scratch. If you were, you would have an American Bar Association model based around different sectors. But we already have robust organisations that represent different practice areas. What it needs to do is create a global membership organisation that focuses on the core activities of solicitors. I think solicitors would pay for that. However, it will have to reduce its overheads massively, though, as the central London club for the profession, I see no reason why Chancery Lane shouldn’t be retained.
“However, it probably has only three years at best to get its act together. A huge amount depends on the appointment of the new chief executive. The council, which needs to be slimmed down, should agree, after consultation, a strategic plan for the next five years and then mandate the chief executive to get on with it without interference.”
RICHARD FOLLIS, clinical negligence partner with the solicitors Alexander Harris, is the president of the 2,400-member Birmingham Law Society
“It is inconceivable that solicitors should not have a national representative body to speak with one voice to the new regulatory and complaints bodies, to government and to international contacts.
“Beyond that, it is far less clear. There are many things the national body seeks to do, which local law societies already do, and do better, such as locally based training. Practitioners won’t pay twice for services so there must be a clear demarcation between the national and the local bodies, which are already funded through voluntary subscriptions.
“Planning for the future is difficult because the national society is either unable or unwilling to provide costings. One possibility is to adopt some form of federal structure where solicitors pay a single fee to the national body with a proportion rebated to the local societies. This gives complete membership so subscriptions are lower.
“It would be even better if it could incorporate and build upon the support already enjoyed by local law societies. The national society has for years failed to engage with the grassroots membership. Its regional offices were too little, too late and too expensive.
“There is a great deal of talk about the future governance of the new body but what is required at Chancery Lane is a change in culture. Many practitioners simply do not see that the society has much to offer them so, if it is to win their support, it needs to be a lean, mean, new-look body that provides value for money.”
EILEEN PEMBRIDGE, senior partner of London solicitors Fisher Meredith, has been a council member for 16 years and is on the Law Reform Board, Family Law and Access to Justice committees
“I want the Law Society to survive. It has at least two vital jobs to do representing solicitors and working on law reform in the public interest. But it has to do better than hitherto in looking after its members and raising its profile. The key is going to be communication, particularly electronic communication, so practitioners can link into the society’s 21 specialist committees, which are its ‘jewels in the crown’. I suggest that solicitors will buy into their sectoral interests, including virtual access to the work of relevant committees.
“The present buildings and staff cannot be afforded from a voluntary subscription. I hope that at least the main building at Chancery Lane could be kept so there is a prestigious headquarters in London for the new body.
“The lack of figures makes it difficult to predict its future. Practitioners might well pay a £100 subscription without demur but I think more will be needed. I suspect a lot of commercial firms will talk about going it alone, but the society has a very good international directorate, which can help their global practices — and solidarity might prevail.
“There is a lot of work to be done remedying the lack of past appreciation among solicitors about the benefits the society can provide to convince them to pay up in the future.”
CHRISTOPHER DIGBY-BELL is chief executive and general counsel of Palmer Capital Partners, a venture capital and property fund management business. He is a Law Society council member representing Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire
“LAWYERS are important so they need a representative body that can look after their interests and protect the rule of law from an interfering government. I am advocating getting political, which some lawyers won’t like.
“The problem is that the society’s focus has been 100 per cent on regulation and not enough on representation. Some say nothing much will change because, even though the society is being split into three separate elements of regulation, complaints handling and representation, it will still be legally regarded as the frontline regulator. But you can’t be both regulator and trade union.
“If I were starting from fresh, I would create a body similar to the CBI. But, starting from where we are, I think the best model is the American Bar Association, which groups lawyers by practice area rather than geography. The statistics show only a small proportion of solicitors play any active part in local law societies.
“The test will be finding a model that offers enough to members that they will be willing to pay for it. I think the new body should have an outward and visible presence and I would hope we could structure a financial package where we retain Chancery Lane, though we may have to share it. Despite all its difficulties, the Law Society has a brand that says something about professionalism and integrity, so it could pay for itself by selling training, IT and publications.”
DAVID MCINTOSH, senior partner of the City law firm Davies Arnold Cooper, is chairman of the City of London Law Society. A former Society president, he is a council member and chairman of its international issues committee
“WE NEED an effective national law society because there are things that only a national body can do for all solicitors, including setting standards for qualification and ethics; providing a national voice in dealing with government and other stakeholders over law reform; and negotiating practice and establishment rights abroad. It must champion the causes of solicitors, without becoming a strident trade union, because it must also maintain a public interest in supporting access to justice and human rights.
“The Law Society has suffered in its representative capacity over recent years because it has been in almost permanent change management mode. It is now entering a brave new world where the window of opportunity to attract support beyond the mandatory fees is probably no more than a year.
“It has to make itself an attractive buy, which will mean slimming down. But it is too easy a shot for the uninformed to say Chancery Lane should go. If it is to be a national organisation with status and influence, it must have a proper home. It has been suggested the City of London Law Society could take over the national role. That is entirely wrong. We have 11,000-plus members, largely through corporate membership, but we are still a local law society.”
