Legal Personality of the Year award for GLC's Principal Solicitor & Ian Smart

GLC's Principal Solicitor has been honoured at the 2010 Law Awards of Scotland. The prestegious Legal Personality of the Year award went jointly to GLC's Mike Dailly, and past President of the Law Society of Scotland, Ian Smart. Last night, awards host Richard Draycott explained the thinking behind the decision of the Judges as follows:

"Surely nobody would argue with the proposition that we have had an unprecedented 12 months in the history of the Scottish legal profession. It has been a year of argument for the hearts and minds - a battle for the very soul - of the Scottish solicitors’ profession. The Law Award judges were unanimous that it would be disingenuous – perverse even - to look beyond the furore over ABS to find the Legal Personality of the Year".

"The publication of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill in late 2009 reignited a debate that had been dormant since the Law Society’s 2008 AGM. What followed was months of passionate argument – evidence to the Justice Committee, blogs, press releases, newspaper reports, journal articles, road-shows – the whole interspersed with what to many outsiders seemed a baffling succession of Law Society general meetings, alleged general meetings and referenda, with outcomes no more comprehensible than the proceedings themselves. Solicitors truly living up to their reputation for obfuscation".

 "The battle lines were drawn between: on the one hand, those urging regulatory change and ABS as commercial and practical necessities for Scottish solicitors to remain competitive and seize the opportunities of globalisation and technology, and on the other, those urging caution and the maintenance of the traditional model of independence as both more in keeping with Scottish legal values and a better competitive bet in the long-term".

"Both sides had one thing in common: both saw themselves as the true defenders of the values, traditions and ambitions of Scottish solicitors. Both sides also had in common some of the most articulate, and entertainingly trenchant, debaters in the profession today. Two personalities from opposite sides of the argument stand out amidst the swirling smoke and gun fire of the battlefield".

"Both have in common tenacity and stamina. Both can be argumentative and combative. Both have a tendency to hyperbole. Both have the common touch. Both have a sense of humour. Both have engaged us. Both have entertained us. Both share the distinction of debating the future of the Scottish legal profession from the same sofa on national television".

"One found himself cast as what he would see as the improbable advocate of the establishment position and master of political spin. One found himself cast as the rebel outsider, master of the campaigning blog. One is Ian Smart, past President of the Law Society of Scotland. The other is Mike Dailly, Principal Solicitor of Govan Law Centre.  The Judges are unanimous in awarding the Legal Personality of the Year award jointly to Ian Smart and Mike Dailly".

A fair and level playing field?

When a Government Minister fights an election, he or she does not do so on Government time, with paid civil servants producing campaign materials. Likewise, if the Scottish Government were to hold a referendum on independence, they would campaign not as Ministers, but as members of their political party. They would not be permitted to use civil servants to produce campaign materials or use their Office to run a campaign. Such referenda are subject to campaign rules.

For example, in 'Scotland's Future' the Scottish Government explain why their proposed referendum would need to be subject to campaign rules: "it is essential that rules are in place to ensure that the campaigns are run in a demonstrably fair and open manner ... The aim is to create a level playing field for those involved in campaigning; no organisation should have an unfair advantage over another. In particular, a single wealthy organisation should not be able to influence the campaign disproportionately".

But incredibly there are no such campaign rules for Law Society of Scotland referenda. Which explains why the President, Council members, and the Chief Executive Officer can help themselves to resources - paid for by the members - such as staff time, organisational facilities, confidential databases, and Law Society financial resources to run their own campaign in favour of 'Tesco Law', and the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill.

Does that give them 'an unfair advantage'? You betcha. Have they been prepared to offer the same resources to Scottish solicitors who have concerns over aspects of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill? No, because they want to win at all costs. It's their game, their rules, and if you don't like it, it's their ball too. This is a very sad indictment on Law Society President, Ian Smart, who is ultimately responsible for this undemocratic process.

GLC's Principal Solicitor's call for Mr Smart to resign is reported in today's The Scotsman here, and concerns over the lack of fairness in next week's SGM is reported in today's The Herald here.

Go, and go quickly

Call for the President of the Law Society of Scotland to resign, from GLC's Principal Solicitor.

Referenda are a powerful means to provide certainty on important issues. But the democratic authority of any vote depends upon whether it has been conducted fairly and transparently.

The UK Parliament recognised this in enacting the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Part VII of that Act ensures that any UK referendum is conducted fairly, with both sides of an issue having equivalent financial resources, and equal routes of access to influence the plebiscite with their literature or voting message.

The current Scottish debate on Alternative Business Structures or ‘Tesco Law’ is subject to two forthcoming votes: a Special General Meeting on 25 March, and a referendum thereafter. The body responsible for conducting these votes is the Law Society of Scotland.

The Law Society of Scotland is the Returning Officer, charged with operating and conducting the ballot of its members, and counting the votes cast at the SGM and referendum on Tesco Law. The electorate are 10,500 Scottish solicitors, who are members of the Law Society of Scotland.

Yet, have you ever heard of a Returning Officer deploying all of their financial resources and staff to influence a vote? Actually, not just influencing a vote, but aggressively and overtly campaigning for a particular outcome in that vote?

No? Well, incredibly this is what the Law Society of Scotland is doing. It even has a Scottish Government Minister speaking on its platform today to tell us why we must support the Law Society’s and the Scottish Government’s desire to allow external ownership of Scots legal firms by financial institutions and other non-solicitor bodies.

Now, I have no problem with Ian Smart travelling around Scotland to preach the false virtues of Tesco Law to Scottish solicitors. That’s his personal right as a solicitor, but not as President of the body which is conducting the poll of its members on this issue. On his own time and expense only.

Likewise, why is Lorna Jack, the chief executive of our Society, travelling around Scotland to encourage solicitors to vote for Tesco Law? Ms Jack is a paid official, she is not a Scottish solicitor. She has no vote. Why should she use her official position to influence the outcome of a democratic vote?

The Law Society’s view on Tesco Law is what its members tell it; not what the President, Council, or the chief executive think. Otherwise, what’s the point of holding of a democratic plebiscite?

Likewise, I have no problem with Janet Hood promulgating the benefits of Tesco Law to in-house solicitors. But not as Chairman of the Law Society of Scotland’s In-House Lawyers Group, using the Law Society’s resources and confidential membership data to influence the vote of members. Data which is not available to those solicitors who disagree with Tesco Law.

The Law Society of Scotland is presiding over a polling exercise whereby it is also the chief campaigner and PR agent for ‘Tesco Law’. It’s the judge, jury and executioner of the independence of our profession.

Our Office Bearers and officials should be neutral in this debate: they should permit their members to advocate for, or against, Tesco Law. They have failed to do so. Worst still, they have taken it upon themselves to dictate to members how they should vote. This democratic deficit can only be described as Mugabesque. It’s thoroughly unfair and brings our profession into serious disrepute here at home, and internationally.

When I was on a recent Human Rights mission in West Central Africa, the British High Commissioner explained to me how certain vested interests paid for votes by slapping a 5000 CFA note on a voter’s forehead. Such undemocratic practices were utterly deplorable and repugnant, but how different are they to some people who should be impartial using their positions as Office Bearers and officers to sway the vote on the future of Scotland’s legal profession?

Scotland’s solicitors have been placed in a deplorable position. Cometh the hour, cometh the man or woman. Leadership is vital in critical moments. I sincerely believe that our President has sold the purse; he has failed to provide leadership; he has failed to promote and safeguard the interests of our profession. He has been responsible for an undemocratic and unfair voting process. I believe that our President, Ian Smart should go, and go quickly.