AGM report

Self-regulation ‘a misnomer’

“We are certain that it is in the interests of the public that we continue to regulate the Scottish solicitors profession”, President Martin McAllister told delegates at the Society’s AGM.

Preparing the Society’s response to the Justice I Inquiry has been the single biggest work of his year as President.

He welcomed the process which made the Society examine “the way we do things, why we do them in a particular way and whether we should continue to do them”.

“It is right that Parliament should focus on the way we do things but self-regulation is a misnomer. The terms co-regulation and external regulation are perhaps more accurate.

“We as solicitors are regulated by lots of bodies other than the Law Society of Scotland. Regulation is a privilege. Privilege brings obligation and it is important that we as solicitors accept our obligations in dealing with complaints and regulating our members.

“Whatever Parliament recommends in its report, the Society will respond positively. Preparing for the response to the Committee has been in itself immense value to the work of the Society.”

Concerns over the system of civil legal aid also loomed large during his Presidency, said Martin McAllister.

“The civil courts must provide a speedy and efficient resolution of disputes. Our legal aid system was for many years our pride and widely admired throughout the world.

“We know that erosion has occurred – for example the limitation on eligibility and take up of offers of civil legal aid. There is a real threat of that trend continuing because of future unavailability of solicitors providing the service because legal aid fees are the same as they were a decade ago.”

He described his time as President as an “immense privilege”.

“Coming from a small firm in Ayrshire to be President of the Society was daunting and there were times when I wondered what I had done.

“Stronger than my doubts however was my continuing belief that anyone, whether a sole practitioner, a partner in one of our largest firms or an in-house solicitor, has common values which are core to being a lawyer.

“Nothing confirmed that belief more than the outrage of the terrorist attacks of September 11th.

“For us as lawyers it was a complete abomination. It demonstrated an effect of the breakdown of the rule of law.”

Honorary membership

The rarely awarded accolade of honorary membership of the Society was bestowed on former chairman of the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal John Laughland.

Mr Laughland retired last year after nearly ten years as the Tribunal Chairman, serving 20 years all in at the SSDT.

Making the presentation, Martin McAllister said: “The Tribunal is an important component of regulators of the profession. Membership of it either as a solicitor or non-solicitor member is a selfless expression of service to solicitors and to society”.

Fund offers unrivalled protection

In her valedictory address to the AGM as Convener of the Guarantee Fund, Heather Gibbings told the audience once again that “one of the main reasons that the Fund is in good heart is because the majority of solicitors in Scotland are honest”.

Grants from the fund amounted to £249,000 in 2001, better than the estimated figure of £300,000, and only slightly up on the previous year’s figure of £234,000.

3,721 solicitors contributed to the fund in 2001, with the Council deciding six cases originating from the Committee warranted referral for prosecution before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, representing less than 0.2 %.

This overwhelming honesty of Scotland’s solicitors was never more relevant  now as the profession comes under the scrutiny of the Justice I Inquiry into the regulation of the Legal Profession, said Heather Gibbings.

She said during the course of the inquiry the Society was asked how it actively seeks to promote and protect the public interests.

“To answer that question need one look further than the work of the Guarantee Fund Department? The public in Scotland is served by an honest profession with the unrivalled consumer protection of the Fund. And if ever the interests of the public and profession come together, they do so in the Guarantee Fund.”

Reflecting on her three years as Convener, Heather Gibbings said her efforts were intended to “give a little back to a profession that I still believe in”.

“A profession that although it is under pressure, over worked, stressed out and much maligned still manages, for the most part, to be hardworking and honest, dedicated and committed to the best interests of the client, able to deliver high quality work and give value for money.

“And sometimes, just now and then, we derive a little satisfaction from a job well done.”

She closed her Report by saying “Perhaps we should be telling Justice 1 that we are actually quite good at this regulation and we must be getting something right!”

Nothing to fear from quality assurance regime

Reforms to the system of civil legal aid are required if we aren’t to lose an entire generation of civil legal aid lawyers, warned Convener of the Legal Aid Committee Ian Smart.

“I have serious concerns as to where legal aid lawyers will come from in the future. The issue of what they can get paid and the concentration of trainees at large firms is leading to a very real skills gap”

“The Executive do realise there is a problem with regard to the shortage of solicitors in this area and are prepared to consider a significant increase in Civil Legal Aid fees but the price is reform.”

Reform will contain elements including a new application and reporting processes and a quality assurance regime. On that, Ian Smart said: “There is nothing to fear. It’s not unreasonable that the Scottish Legal Aid Board have requested the right to be assured as to the quality of work.”

He welcomed the Justice Minister’s announcement on raising eligibility limits and the recognition that legal aid is essential to people in the middle-income range to obtain access to justice.

 “Legal aid does not exist to provide remuneration for lawyers. If it were to collapse it would cause discomfort, but the legal profession would survive. The real losers would be the users of the scheme.”