Parry 'optimistic' over Law Society no confidence motion

James Parry, the Liverpool solicitor advocate who has successfully campaigned for a special general meeting of the Law Society to pass a motion of no confidence in its leadership, said today that he was "optimistic" about the result.

The society announced this week that the SGM will go ahead at the earliest possible date, Tuesday 17 December, and will be immediately followed by a meeting of the society's council.

"I think we'll have well in excess of 100 criminal lawyers there," Parry said. "As to whether we reach two or three hundred, I don't know.

"The feedback I'm getting from social media sites is that a lot of people from London and beyond are going to go.

"The 10.30 start in the morning has generated quite a lot of anger. If you're coming from anywhere north of Birmingham you would have to get an early morning peak time train and it will cost a small fortune."

In response, Parry said he and his colleagues were thinking of hiring a bus to take solicitors from Liverpool, while criminal lawyers in London had offered beds to solicitors who wanted to stay overnight.

Parry said that if the no confidence motion was passed, either the society's chief executive, Des Hudson, and president, Nicholas Fluck, could "consider their positions", or there could be a postal ballot of the whole profession.

He added that he had written to Sir Alan Beith, chairman of the Commons justice committee, to keep him informed of developments.

In a formal statement attached to the notice of the meeting, the society's council said that adopting a "hearts and minds" approach to the criminal legal aid cuts would have allowed the government to dismiss its arguments as "the noisy protests of a vested interest".

The council went on: "Outright opposition, however loud, however populist, may have temporarily raised the morale of this group of members but would have represented an abdication of the society's duties to further the best interests of the profession and protect the public interest. Engagement was the right strategic choice for obtaining influence and achieving substantive change to the proposals.

"The Law Society is an organisation that operates on the basis of representative democracy. The directly elected council and its delegated boards reach decisions and are accountable to the membership for those via elections.

"The decision to agree to the structure of the September consultation proposal, while maintaining opposition to the fee structures - was reached by the legal affairs and policy board on behalf of the council.

"The board's decision was subsequently supported by the full council. This provides a clear mandate. To require a mandate to be sought from members directly affected by any decision would be to substantially change the society's democratic structures and governance."