One for all?

Much has been said over the years about the dual role of the Law Society of Scotland as both regulator and representative of the solicitor profession, and in particular the compatibility or otherwise of these objectives. These days the Society seems to have the dual role also of attempting to sell the profession to the public, while at the same time having to sell itself to the profession.

There is nothing new about solicitors regarding their professional regulator with antipathy, much as one would any other organisation with the job of watching what you are doing over your shoulder. Nor, indeed, for solicitors to question what the Society has done for them in its representatve role. The Society, in turn, would no doubt point for example to the Professional Practice Department, which consistently achieves top ratings for its advice service, as well as to results such as were recently achieved in getting HSBC to revise its mortgage documentation relating to non-panel solicitors. And although some fall into the temptation, it really can't be blamed for every Government announcement that isn't to the liking of some members.

But in these days when nothing and no one is exempt from critical scrutiny, we can expect the questions to be asked, whether things can and should be done differently. The Journal is taking forward the debate, online and in print.

In this month's issue you will find an opinion column from Fraser Tait, arguing that solicitors should be able to choose whether to have the Society as their representative body. There is also a feature article by John McGovern, arguing that the current statutory arrangements are actually incompatible with the Human Rights Convention, in so far as they require membership of a represntative body that is also regulator. Are there human rights lawyers out there who disagree? I would love to hear from anyone with a contribution on these issues.

All this as a new President who is unashamedly a salesman takes office. As is clear from his interview, also published this month, Austin Lafferty is totally committed to improving the public perception of solicitors, and equally to meeting the Society's critics on their own ground and engaging in debate.

We can look forward to a lively 12 months ahead, and I hope the Journal will lead the debate. All I would say at the moment is beware the apparently simple solution. Whether and how we should change the structure of the solicitor profession and its governing body is a subject that needs to be fully thought through.