Law Society: SGMs have high cost
The group that last year requisitioned a special general meeting (SGM) of the Law Society has described plans to make it much harder to do so in future as “shocking”.
The society last week announced that next month’s annual general meeting would be asked to approve increasing the threshold for an SGM from 100 to 0.5% of the membership – or 1,080 on a current membership of around 216,000.
It said the current figure was set in 1975, representing around 0.26% of the then membership of 38,000 – but it was now just 0.046%.
This was much lower than comparable membership organisations in the law and other professions, while the advent of social media meant it was much easier to mobilise support for requisitioning an SGM, while SGMs were “high cost”, both financial and time.
The society is also proposing that an SGM could not be called for a motion which would be ineffective if passed, for example because its implementation was not possible under Chancery Lane’s functions and powers, or which is “frivolous or vexatious”.
The Law Society said the changes maintained an appropriate balance between “the limited purposes intended to be served by the holding of a SGM as an exceptional alternative to annual general meetings and other forms of engagement”, and maintaining the ability of members to collectively and democratically call for a SGM in legitimate circumstances.
The Property Lawyers Alliance (PLA) called an SGM last year but failed with a motion of no confidence [1] in the society’s leadership over its handling of the TA6 conveyancing form. Although more than 500 solicitors registered to attend, only 350 actually voted
The PLA said the announcement was “shocking”, with chair Stephen Larcombe saying it was “dark days for a democratic Law Society”.
“Time and time again the Law Society has shown itself to be remote and out of touch with those solicitors it purports to represent,” he went on.
“The council’s democracy is more apparent than real since in practice power does not reside with council but with the board.
“Law Society governance is Byzantine in its complexity, impenetrable and completely over the top. At the centre is the board. The board’s agenda is set by the CEO so as to ensure that the board’s actions ‘align with the Law Society’s strategic goals’ So in practice ultimate power resides with the CEO not the president.”
Colin McWilliams, who also helps run the PLA, added: “Instead of learning lessons from the TA6 debacle, which it claims to have done, the Law Society simply attempts to avoid future accountability.
“The Law Society no longer reflects the membership. It reflects its sponsors and its primary focus is on protecting its commercial activities above all else – including its membership. The Law Society has a serious democratic deficit.
“Why should solicitors continue to be forced to contribute towards such an organisation?”
Dawn Lawson, a partner at Nichols Marcy Dawson and last year’s Surrey Law Society president, wrote on LinkedIn that, while last year’s SGM did not formally succeed, it achieved withdrawal of the fifth edition of the TA6.
“Unlike the accountants and surveyors they cite [as examples of other professions where SGM thresholds are higher], our profession is fragmented – family, commercial, environmental lawyers aren’t going to rally behind property-specific issues.
“This would make it far harder for property lawyers to challenge future decisions that directly affect us.”
Melanie Lawrence, a property solicitor at Setfords, said on LinkedIn that she was “astounded” by the announcement.
“I cannot help but think it was because the Property Lawyers Alliance triggered a vote of no confidence last year because TLS were ignoring very valid pleas from conveyancers about the flawed amendments to the form TA6 they were carte blanche implementing.
“They wish to change the threshold to 1000 instead of 100. Is this because they want to kill democracy in our profession?”
Register for the AGM here [2].