Law Society: No way to stop ballot
The Law Society is to go ahead with a ballot of the membership on increasing the threshold for calling a special general meeting (SGM) – even though its council has withdrawn support for the idea.
The climbdown quietly announced on Wednesday follows a special council meeting forced by its members. As ever, it was held in private.
The motion at the annual general meeting to raise the number of signatures required to call an SGM from 100 to 0.5% of the membership – or 1,080 on a current membership of around 216,000 – was defeated by 72 votes to 67 (52% to 48%).
The then president, Richard Atkinson, immediately invoked the society’s bye-laws to call for a vote of the whole membership given how close it was.
The society said: “Council met on 29 October and reflected on discussions at the AGM. Having done so, it resolved to withdraw its endorsement of the motion, whilst recognising that the motion would nonetheless proceed to a ballot of members given the decision of the AGM.”
A spokeswoman explained to Legal Futures that, when a membership ballot has been directed at a general meeting, the bye-laws did not permit its withdrawal after the meeting has concluded.
“The ballot will therefore go ahead in the next few weeks, using electronic voting which is the most cost-effective approach [the society has previously said it would cost less than £10,000].
“The level of the required threshold for future SGMs will shortly be in the hands of members, who have the final decision on whether bye-law 22 should be changed.”
Writing on LinkedIn in a personal capacity, Steven Mather – who represents Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland on the council – said he had not liked the decision to call the ballot. “It felt like [the Law Society] weren’t reading the room. It felt like we weren’t listening to our members, the members whom we are meant to represent.”
He said council members were not aware the president would call a public ballot in the event of losing the vote.
“Subsequently, 25 council members (the number required in the byelaws) called a special meeting of council and put forward a motion to withdraw council’s previous support of the SGM motion – in other words, council had listened to the members already.”
This was passed. Under the byelaws, the council ‘may’ make a statement on the ballot. Mr Mather reported that the council delegated that to the new president, Mark Evans, but he has decided not to do so.
Mr Mather said: “This means that those opposing the motion do not get a chance to make a statement either, because the byelaws refer to those who ‘oppose the council’s position’ and of course council’s position is now opposing the motion.”
Describing the situation as “a mess and unsatisfactory”, Mr Mather argued that the society should be focusing on bigger issues than “wasting time and money on a public ballot on a matter which council nor our members agree on”. Its bye-laws and general regulations needed reviewing.
Finally, he said, the Law Society “should listen to its members, more and better!”
Leave a Comment