Justice for Scotland coalition launched

A coalition of Scottish solicitors including Thompsons Solicitors, the Glasgow Bar Association, Govan Law Centre and others, have come together under the principle of 'Justice for Scotland' to reject 'Tesco Law' and call for better legal services for Scotland's citizens and communities.

Solicitor Advocate and Senior Partner at Thompsons, Frank Maguire said:
"We need to refocus our legal services on Scotland’s communities and citizens. They deserve better. We need to send a message to the Scottish Government to think again. We must reform our Law Society as it has shown itself incapable of representing all of those trying to render a legal service in Scotland now and in the future".

"We must seek to re-affirm, through any such reform, the principles crucial to the administration of justice. We must also ensure that the legal service is preserved and improved across the whole range of needs of the Scottish people and their communities. Scottish solicitors can join us to begin to make this happen and ensure you vote NO; NO by noon, 7 April 2010".

The coalition's campaign website is here: Justice for Scotland, and all Scottish solicitors are invited to join, add their voice, and ensure that they vote, 'NO; NO' by noon, 7 April 2010.

Complaint to Electoral Reform Society

GLC has lodged a complaint with the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) in relation to the wording of the two questions in the forthcoming Law Society of Scotland referendum on ABS or 'Tesco Law'. The letter to the ERS is reproduced below.

Mr Andrew Burns
The Chairman
The Electoral Reform Society
6 Chancel Street
London
SE1 0UU

Dear Mr Burns

Law Society of Scotland (LSS) referendum on ‘Alternative Business Structures’ – internet-based voting system operated by the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) on behalf of the LSS

I am a Scottish solicitor, and a member of the Law Society of Scotland. I note that my Law Society has instructed the ERS to undertake an electronic referendum of all solicitors in Scotland on two questions concerning the proposed introduction of ‘Alternative Business Structures’ to Scotland.

I am aware of the first class reputation of the ERS and am therefore puzzled as to why you would put your good name and reputation to a referendum whereby the questions posed are biased, conditional and heavily weighted in favour of one particular outcome, namely ABS? This is the favoured policy of the governing body of the LSS, notwithstanding that it is now clearly opposed by many within the Scottish legal profession. For example, the first question posed is thus:

"Do you support in principle the introduction of Alternative Business Structures ("ABSs") to Scotland as long as there are appropriate safeguards to protect the core values of the legal profession and there is an equivalence of regulation between ABSs and traditional firms?"

This question predetermines the answer by making a value judgement that there will be ‘appropriate safeguards’ to protect the independence of solicitors' legal services to the public. But that is the very issue which is being debated amongst solicitors in Scotland. Separately, the question as framed is tautological (‘a statement that is true of necessity or by its logical form’).

Can you please advise whether the ERS had any involvement in the framing of the referendum questions? Can you please advise whether it is you policy as a UK body which promotes fair and democratic elections to take part in a voting procedure which is patently undemocratic by reason of the use of ‘loaded’ or ‘leading questions’?

Finally, can you please advise on your formal complaints process (and please treat this letter as a formal complaint) as I am concerned that the LSS will use the good reputation of the ERS to give credibility and respect to its flawed referendum on this occasion.

Yours faithfully

Mike Dailly
Principal Solicitor

Law Society rigs referendum question

As Scottish solicitors cast their votes in the 'Tesco Law' referendum (whether to embrace or reject the external ownership of law firms by non-solicitors) the Law Society has chosen to use a ‘loaded’ question, heavily weighted in its favour.

The referendum question chosen by the Society predetermines the answer by making a value judgement that there will be ‘appropriate safeguards’ to protect the independence of solicitors' legal services to the public. But that is the very issue which is hotly contested in the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill. Also, the question as framed is tautological (‘a statement that is true of necessity or by its logical form’). The question asked is:

"Do you support in principle the introduction of Alternative Business Structures ("ABSs") to Scotland as long as there are appropriate safeguards to protect the core values of the legal profession and there is an equivalence of regulation between ABSs and traditional firms?"

Govan Law Centre’s Principal Solicitor, Mike Dailly, said:

"At the heart of the Tesco Law debate is the concern there would be inappropriate safeguards to prevent solicitors being influenced by a vested corporate agenda to the detriment of the public. For the Law Society to phrase its question to assume there would be safeguards is nothing more than a shameless attempt to procure a yes vote."

"The international and UK established practice in referenda is for questions to be framed as neutral, simple and unconditional, and for both sides of the argument to have a fair and level playing field when it comes to campaigning. That hasn’t happened as the Society has deployed all its staff and resources to campaign for a Tesco Law 'yes' vote. But now the referendum itself has been rigged by a loaded question".

"The Law Society’s President Ian Smart should hang his head in shame. The question should be reset in neutral terms, and Mr Smart should resign forthwith for presiding over the most unfair and undemocratic process in the history of the Law Society of Scotland".

GLC suggests the question should be framed in simple, neutral and unbiased terms:

Question: Do you support the introduction of Alternative Business Structures to Scotland?"

YES

NO

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.

Rebuff by filibuster

GLC's Principal Solicitor's response to the Law Society's refusal to add the "dual function" question on the ballot of Scottish solicitors later this month.

In the brilliant 1939 Frank Capra movie ‘Mr Smith goes to Washington’ Jimmy Stewart holds up proceedings in the US Senate by filibustering. The filibuster is a dilatory motion to prevent something happening, which often employs an arsenal of objections and obfuscation. While Senator Smith was standing up for democracy, sadly, President Smart is filibustering to deny Scottish solicitors their say on the threat to the independence of our profession in the referendum commencing 22 March onwards.

In the interests of transparency, I have reproduced (below) the formal response from the Law Society’s Chief Executive last night, to yesterday’s requisition for a referendum question on: “Should the Law Society of Scotland as statutory regulator continue to be responsible for promotion of the interests of, and the representation of, solicitors in Scotland?”. Regrettably, our President, Vice-President and Chief Executive propose to kick this question into the long grass. The reasons for this decision can only be described as filibustering.

The Society have said they must ‘formally’ know what is meant by ‘promotion’ and ‘representation’ in order to ‘discuss’ the requisition. Yet Article 24 of the Constitution clearly mandates Council to hold a referendum on a question if at least 50 solicitors make a requisition. The only discussion is timing. The absurdity of the Society’s position is further exposed when one considers that ‘promote’ is the terminology used in section 1 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, while ‘represent’ is the expression used by the Society itself.

Another reason given for not treating the future of our profession as urgent is because it might be a bit pricey in expense claims for Council members to meet next week? Astonishing. It might be helpful for a full disclosure of all expense claims so we ascertain why we are too poor to convene an extra meeting.

Finally, we are told that the position on ABS (Tesco Law) needs to be ascertained before we can consider changes to the structure of our regulatory and representative body. Lorna Jack says this is because the independent representation issue is subsidiary to the ABS issue. Yet, in today’s statement from Ian Smart, Ian quite rightly concedes that the two issues are ‘distinct’ and separate.

In truth, there is no cogent reason why the ‘dual function’ question cannot be added to the ballot paper. Justice delayed is justice denied. Likewise, filibustering over the democratic and constitutional rights of solicitors is wrong.

"Dear John

ARTICLE 24 REQUISITION

I confirm receipt of your letter together with the 65 signed notices requesting a referendum in terms of Article 24 of the Constitution of the Law Society of Scotland and your request under Standing Order 7(1)(a) asking me to request that the President call a special meeting of the Council. Ian Smart, President; Jamie Millar, Vice-President and I have agreed that your requisition will be discussed at the scheduled Council Meeting on Thursday 25th March. Council will then make arrangements to hold the referendum thereafter.

The President asks that prior to the papers being issued to Council for this meeting that, on behalf of the signatories to this requisition, you formally advise him of what is meant by "promotion" and "representation" as contained within your proposed question and the kinds of activities that you see falling within those terms. These explanations would assist the Council's discussion on the 25th March.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Council's proposed referendum is not in connection with the provisions of the Legal Services Bill. It will ask whether ABS has the continued support of the Profession. It directly responds to the issues raised regarding legitimacy of the 2008 vote which established the Society's policy and allows one member one vote in a secret ballot as you and others have suggested should be done. This issue needs clarification before any subsidiary issue, which arises as a result of s92 of the Bill, is dealt with, not least because some in the Scottish Law Agents Society believe that the referendum result may lead to a change in Government policy and the Bill as currently drafted. Partly in consequence of that, we have undertaken to them that the Society's referendum result will be known before the Stage 1 debate on the Bill, likely to take place in mid April. We do not therefore wish to delay the Society's Referendum which we have this week instructed ERS to deliver.

Cost must obviously however also be a consideration. The referendum planned will cost less than 40p per member. The cost of running a second referendum in the same way has been balanced against the cost associated with attempting to secure an additional meeting of Council before 25th March.

For information, our understanding, is that the Society has held referenda before, once in the 1980s in relation to the setting of advertising rules and once in the 1990's in relation to a levy which was raised to carry out an advertising campaign.

Kind regards

Lorna Jack"