Hudson: salary enhancement in lieu of pension contribution

Law Society chief executive Des Hudson saw his remuneration package fall 16% last year, the society’s annual accounts have shown.

The Law Society recorded a net deficit of £22.7m in 2012 – more than the £10m which had been budgeted for as a result of IT project overruns. Income for 2012 was £120m.

In 2012, Mr Hudson received salary and benefits of £340,000 and no pension contributions, having received £376,000 pay and £31,000 in pension contributions, a total of £407,000, the year before.

Until 2012 his pay had risen substantially since joining the Law Society. The 2007 accounts, Mr Hudson’s first full year as chief executive, had him on a package worth £230,726.

A Law Society spokesman said: “[Mr Hudson’s] reward package is determined by reference to criteria set each year by an independent remuneration committee. In 2012 he chose a salary enhancement in lieu of pension contribution.”

The accounts, which will be presented to Thursday’s annual general meeting, reveal that he was also paid £25,000 as a director of Queen’s Counsel Appointments, the joint Law Society/Bar Council body that handles the award of the QC mark. The spokesman said this acknowledges his contribution, in an ex-officio capacity, to the body’s work and is made to the Law Society, rather than Mr Hudson personally.

Antony Townsend, chief executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), saw his package rise 9%, with salary and benefits of £225,000 (up from £209,000) and pension contributions of £26,000 (up from £21,000).

In all the Law Society paid £51.7m in employment costs across the two organisations in 2012, a drop of 6.6%. However, the number of staff fell 10% from 1,023 to 919, with the reduction in posts split fairly evenly between the Law Society and SRA, which as of 31 December 2012 employed 376 and 543 people respectively.

The Law Society spokesman said the higher than anticipated deficit was largely made up of a £4.4m charge for depreciation, £5.9m of fixed assets impairment costs, and £3.2m provision for future costs arising from the assigned risks pool.

He said: “The deficit will be funded from accounting reserves. We were aware of most of the costs; however the fixed asset impairment arose towards the end of the year, after we reviewed our levels of capitalisation and cost savings.”

Tags:


    Readers Comments

  • Rachel Lancaster says:

    Speaking as a Sole Practioner I am disgusted at the amount of our money is paid to Mr Hudson when the Law Society, behind our backs, has suggested to the MOJ that Sole Practioners can be dispensed with. What are we getting for this obscene salary?

  • A deficit of £22.7 million “largely made up of ……..£4.4m, £5.9m………..and £3.2m…..”. So that accounts for £13.5million. And the other £9.2 million?

    Not over impressive is it?

    The fact and size of these deficits seems more relevant to me than the salary paid to Mr Hudson. Maybe the AGM this week could be given further details and also any warnings of other deficits that have arisen since 1 January this year and so not in these accounts?

  • Kathryn Bennett says:

    It is not surprising that Chancery Lane officials are paid well – but as well as this???! What can he possibly be doing with such a sum? How could anyone need such a salary? No wonder there is a hole in their finances.


Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

The working practices of property lawyers have changed little since the 19th century. Many aspects of the conveyancing process remain offline – documents are still on paper and the data entered manually. The commercial transaction process is laborious, slow and… Read More

Blog

13 July 2018

The pros and cons of an early PII renewal offer

Most solicitors will accept an early renewal offer for professional indemnity insurance if given the opportunity, rather than look for a new policy. But are they right to do so?

Read More