Motion passed in relation to Society's legal aid negotiation tactics
A vote of no confidence in the Law Society’s leadership has passed at a special general meeting at Chancery Lane.
The Law Society has given no indication of whether its President or Chief Executive will resign.
The motion, proposed by Liverpool criminal law solicitor-advocate James Parry over the Society’s handling of legal aid negotiations with the Ministry of Justice, passed by 228 votes to 213 on this morning (Tuesday).
The Law Society Council immediately held a meeting to discuss an appropriate response following the dramatic result, which is not binding on the Council. It has discounted the possibility that it will hold a postal ballot of all solicitors, which it was previously thought to be considering.
Parry, partner at Parry Welch Lacey, led the campaign for a no-confidence vote in protest at the Law Society’s tactics of engagement with the Lord Chancellor over proposed fee cuts rather than opposition. Speaking ahead of the meeting, Parry had expressed his belief that it would be difficult for the leadership to continue if the vote went through and the “moral thing to do would be to resign”.
Criminal lawyers believe the fee cuts will make the majority of criminal defence work unviable, and that two-thirds of criminal law firms could go out of business. Fees are to be cut by 17.5%, although criminal lawyers say the cuts will be worse in reality as there will be a flat fee of £321 for magistrates’ court trials.
The Bar Council, Criminal Law Solicitors Association and London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association have pursued campaigns of opposition.
However, Des Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, has staunchly defended its tactics, arguing that engagement was a more productive approach than opposition and had led to ministers dropping plans to remove client choice or introduce price competitive tendering.
Speaking at the meeting today, Hudson said: “We have pursued a policy of engagement with the government because we believe – and past evidence shows us – non-engagement does not work.
“By doing what solicitors do best: making evidence-based arguments, changes by the government have been achieved in the interests of our members.
“We have never agreed to any cuts—and we never will.”
A Law Society spokesperson said: “We have listened to our criminal legal aid members. There are lessons to be learned and we will reflect on these developments. Council will considering the outcome today. Our immediate priority is to continue to influence the Ministry of Justice in our members’ interests. We will continue to make it very clear to the Lord Chancellor that we remain opposed to cuts.”
.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=9a8f1ea9_1)
