What's going on at the Law Society?

Political infighting has damaged the society's public image and distracted the profession from pressing issues

T he gloves have finally come off at the Law Society. The simmering discontent that began in the middle of last year with the election of a Law Society president and vice-president with a popular mandate to transform the organisation seems finally to have come to a head.

If the profession at large hoped to show two fingers to its governing body by electing two anti-Law Society candidates to shake up the organisation, what it has ended up with is more akin to a bare-knuckle fight. Unless someone starts making conciliatory noises soon, there will not be much of the society left to reform.

An increasingly bitter battle between the leadership on one side and, on the other, paid society officials and many on its ruling council, is being played out largely through the pages of the press. Rarely can the Law Society have had such a run of self-inflicted bad publicity - "The love secrets of law chief", " 'Shambles' alleged in Law Society", "Attack on 'enemy within' splits the Law Society", are just some of the headlines. If the society has any policies that might affect the rest of us, or any concerns about the erosion of access to justice, we haven't heard much about them recently. The din of its internecine battle has drowned out all else.

It is ironic, therefore, that one of the planks of the reforming duo's election campaign was to improve the public image of the profession. Solicitors are fed up with being blamed for things that aren't their fault and feel the society should be more proactive in its PR tactics.

Martin Mears and Robert Sayer were elected to the presidency and vice- presidency, respectively, last summer on a shamelessly trade unionist ticket, in the first contested ballot for 40 years. They tapped into a strong groundswell of feeling that the society had become too big, too bloated and too out of touch with ordinary solicitors. What was needed was a radical change of approach. As Mr Mears wrote in a recent paper, instead of imposing unnecessary rules and regulations, the role of the society should be to always ask itself, "How can we best find out what the profession wants and then do it?"

What the profession wants, of course, is less competition and higher fees. As Mr Sayer wrote to local lawyers at the beginning of last year, "It makes little sense for us to be too overcompetitive. ... If we could wave a magic wand and all agree to double our fees overnight, we would all be better off. ... Where possible, avoid quotes and charge on a time basis."

Such a blatantly anti-consumerist approach is a reversal of the "enlightened self-interest" that the society has adopted since the mid-Eighties. But the bitterness that has erupted is not just the inevitable result of a dramatic change in direction.

While the new president has faced intense hostility from some at the society, simply because he had had the temerity to rock the boat, much of the current antipathy towards him appears to be self-inflicted. Staff who were earlier prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, or professional enough to keep their feelings to themselves, are now openly disparaging. One says: "Sometimes I quite like him and quite enjoy him. He is immensely clear-sighted in some ways. But there is an increasing perception that giving him professional advice can be a career-damaging decision." In time-honoured political fashion, it's not so much the policies as the personalities.

The problem has been brought to new levels by an open letter to The Lawyer by Eileen Pembridge, one of the defeated candidates in last year's election, in which she alleges Mr Mears and Mr Sayer had created a climate of fear and distrust.

No one - not even his supporters - could accuse Mr Mears of being a bridge builder. Arnold Rosen, a solicitor and fellow irritant of the Law Society, says he is confrontational but effective. "I have seen him handle Law Society staff as if he were a judge and they were a third-rate barrister. He gets results."

Of course, internal hostility may simply be proof that Mr Mears is doing what he was mandated to do and shaking up the Law Society. But at least some of the ill will that he now faces is emphatically not because he has doggedly stuck to his election pledges but because he has constantly veered off on to an agenda of his own.

For example, Mr Mears used his inaugural speech at last year's Law Society conference to digress into an onslaught on the "racket" of the "discrimination industry". The Equal Opportunities Commission should be scrapped as it had become a "public nuisance", he said. Employment lawyers, who earn their living acting in industrial tribunal cases, were unamused at the distorted picture painted by Mr Mears. Writing in the Law Society Gazette, one complained that employment lawyers had been "held up to ridicule and contempt".

Mr Mears has also needlessly irritated the Bar. In a Times article, he ridiculed the Bar's equality code for its "ultra-political correctness" and wondered whether the Bar had "taken leave of its senses". This outburst led to a suggestion from the former Bar chairman Peter Goldsmith QC that Mr Mears should keep his nose out of Bar affairs.

Indeed, there are fears among some observers that the society's infighting is distracting it from the real issues, such as the proposed changes to legal aid. "The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Legal Aid Board must be laughing like drains," says one.

The society may also doing itself no favours with any future Labour government, according to a Bar source, who adds: "We meet people from the Labour Party informally quite frequently. They have made it clear to us that they are now drawing a very clear distinction between the Bar Council, which is perceived as knowing how to respond to a particular agenda, and the Law Society, which appears to be completely bonkers."

Meanwhile, with the society's own election looming, it is not clear whether anybody will stand against him.