Law Society “must become more responsive to members” after SGM

---

Law Society: Calls for reform echoed around the hall, says PLAG head

The Law Society “must become much more responsive to its members working at the coalface of legal services”, the head of the Property Lawyers Action Group has said following this week’s special general meeting (SGM).

Stephen Larcombe requisitioned the meeting and put the motion of no-confidence in the society’s leaders to members on Tuesday. It was defeated by 207 votes to 123.

Writing in the wake of the meeting, Mr Larcombe reflected “on the magnificence of the Law Society’s main hall. A monument to its past glories and its central position in the rule of law. Alas, those days are long gone”.

He continued: “We have a new government and so a new, enthusiastic Lord Chancellor. We need the legal profession to be equally enthused about being members of a strong, independent, and proud legal profession.

“Less enlightened groups are working hard to commoditise and marginalise what we do. These same groups can only use crude invective as their main weapon.”

Mr Larcombe recounted that the Law Society heard “strong criticisms of its actions” at meeting and had to learn lessons from it.

“The most important lesson is that everything the Law Society does from this moment should be based on the idea that the rule of law is paramount. We earn fees to be independent professionals within law’s vast empire. However, that professionalism must evolve or die.”

Mr Larcombe said this needed to the Law Society to become “much more responsive to its members working at the coalface of legal services. There must be a renaissance in the rule of law with solicitors at its heart”.

The calls for reform of the Law Society “echoed around the hall”, he went on and “they are not going away”.

“Certainly, the Property Lawyers Action Group will, with modesty, and humility, evolve and mature to become the conscience of the legal profession.”

Writing on LinkedIn ahead of the meeting, Dawn Lawson, president of Surrey Law Society, said she would be voting in favour of the motion.

Addressing the Law Society, she said: “Whatever the outcome of today’s SGM, you have let me down and you have let all my fellow conveyancers down. Please let today be a turning point and reminder that you are here to represent us and that involves listening.”

She said the TA6 was “simply” the straw that broke the camel’s back. “You have lost my confidence and I will vote as such today. That however does not mean that I will not give the opportunity for you to win it back.”

Rob Hailstone, the non-solicitor head of the Bold Legal Group, whose hundreds of law firm members are conveyancers, said he wanted to see a “new-style” Law Society following the SGM, “particularly when it comes to conveyancing”.

He explained: “Mission creep (mission stomp) has become unsustainable, and many conveyancers are at their wits end. The Law Society needs to listen, engage and consult more often. I appreciate that it can’t consult with every conveyancing solicitor every time something new comes along, but maybe greater engagement with the local law societies (and other groups) could be a first step.”

Solicitor Stephen Desmond, who runs Desmond Property Law Training, said he hoped that “with goodwill and an open mind”, change was on the horizon, citing two key elements of this.

He wrote on LinkedIn that the society needed to be more transparent in its work and how it formulated policy on conveyancing.

“Secondly there should be a radical culture shift towards more open and extensive consultation in advance of any fundamental changes that are likely to have a material impact on practitioners’ working lives.”

Julie West, of Surrey firm Julie West Solicitors, was one of the speakers in favour of the motion at the SGM and afterwards laid out on LinkedIn the idea of a code of practice that those involved in conveyancing should sign up to.

This would limit the demands for updates – “We seriously need to control the unremitting chasing that goes on” – manage expectations of how long proper due diligence takes, demand fees that better reflect the work and responsibilities and in turn reduced caseloads, stop exclusive lender legal panels “and stop charging solicitors panel management fees”, and prevent lenders from requiring homebuyers pay both parties’ legal fees in separate representation cases, “a major disincentive for homebuyers to obtain independent legal advice from a solicitor of their choice”.