Gani: We are entitled to express our view
The SME & Boutique Law Firm Alliance has expressed concern about pushback to its plan to call a vote of no confidence in the board of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) at tomorrow’s Law Society annual general meeting (AGM).
Co-founder Jade Gani said she had been urged to “withdraw, dilute or substantially amend” the motion during discussions with the Law Society.
“The motion has been described to us as ‘incendiary’,” she said, and they had been asked to make it “more palatable”.
The solicitor, founder of Circe Law, went on: “We understand that a vote of no confidence would be uncomfortable. It is intended to communicate a profound loss of confidence. But our members are entitled to express that view.
“We are not seeking to prevent constructive engagement with the SRA. Indeed, we have actively engaged with the SRA, the Law Society and the Legal Services Board (LSB), and we recognise the progress that has been made on the COLP/COFA proposals.
“However, that progress does not resolve the wider questions surrounding the SRA’s accountability.”
Ms Gani said the Alliance was established last month “to give smaller firms a collective voice in regulatory matters”, and its engagement over the SRA’s COLP and COFA reforms “has demonstrated both the appetite and the need for that representation”.
But its concerns extended “considerably” beyond those proposals, encompassing the regulatory failures surrounding Axiom Ince and PM Law, and the “continuing questions about accountability”.
Ms Gani claimed that, in a meeting with Law Society president Mark Evans last Thursday, he said a successful vote of no confidence in the SRA board would require the Law Society to disengage with the SRA until a new board was elected, which the Law Society wanted to avoid because of the progress it had made in engaging with chief executive Sarah Rapson and her team.
Immediately following the meeting, in an email sent to Mr Evans and seen by Legal Futures, Ms Gani expressly recorded this warning and asked for him to explain its basis.
She proposed six alternatives to the motion if that was the case, such as a council-backed resolution on SRA accountability.
In his response two days later, however, again seen by Legal Futures, Mr Evans said a successful vote of no confidence “could not constrain the Law Society from continuing its wider engagement and dealings with the SRA on behalf of all members”.
The letter did not address Ms Gani’s understanding from the Thursday meeting; nor did a Law Society spokeswoman when Legal Futures asked about this yesterday.
The Alliance has also questioned the Law Society’s insistence that its governance rules do not allow for a motion to be introduced at the AGM at this stage, as some of its bye-laws appear to leave the possibility open.
The council – which seems to have the power to do this – is meeting today and will be discussing the AGM.
The Law Society spokeswoman said: “Proper notice, process and procedural fairness must apply to any matter on which members are asked to vote.
“For those reasons, it was not possible to consider the SME & Boutique Law Firm Alliance’s proposed motion at the AGM. We informed Jade Gani of this decision in advance and offered her the opportunity to make a statement on the issue, which she accepted.
“We understand the concerns raised by Jade and the wider profession about the SRA. The Law Society has had considerable influence in the aftermath of the Axiom and SSB scandals. All our main points were addressed by the LSB in its actions against the SRA. In addition, the evidence we submitted to the independent review of the LSB was heard and acted upon.
“We have been encouraged by the willingness of the SRA’s new leadership to listen and act when it has got things wrong, including its decision to pause and rethink the compliance officer measures.
“We will continue working constructively with our members, the SRA and the LSB to address those concerns, agree a clear timetable for next steps.”
The spokeswoman added that the Law Society’s bye-laws set out various time limits, “the combined intent of which is to ensure that our whole membership has proper notice of matters to be considered at the AGM. It would be inconsistent with that for council to attempt to introduce new business at the last minute”.
Ms Gani said the Alliance’s original consultation produced “overwhelming support” for pursuing a vote of no confidence but after last week’s positive meeting [1] with the SRA, it was consulting members again.
“The provisional responses remain in favour of the motion, although voting is ongoing and the current response numbers are limited. We will respect the outcome.”
She added that “progress on one issue does not erase the wider questions about regulatory accountability”.
Writing on LinkedIn, another Alliance co-founder, Peter Redmond, managing partner of Midlands firm Clutton Cox, said: “I don’t think the profession necessarily care whether a vote of no confidence is incendiary, symbolic or otherwise.
“In an age where clients/consumers are the most informed they have ever been and have the highest expectations – so do the profession and if the profession want to express themselves then they should be allowed to do so.”
Stephen Larcombe, who heads the Property Lawyers Alliance and two years ago brought an unsuccessful motion of no confidence [2] in the Law Society’s leadership, added: “A vote of no confidence is not an act of hostility. It is a lawful, constitutional way for members to hold a regulator to account. If the motion is wrong, it will fail on the arguments. If it is right, the profession needs to know.
“Members may support the motion, oppose it, or abstain. That is for them. But the right to put it, to hear it answered, and to vote on it is the purpose of a members meeting. Any attempt to stifle debate would betray a [Law] Society founded to promote the ideals of the rule of law.”