Editors Blog
Waking up to ABS
28 Jan 10
Journal only trying to carry the debate, as always, despite SLAS comments
Just when you thought the ABS debate was safely put to bed...
...we have the Scottish Law Agents Society waking up late in the day to the fact that it means allowing external investment in, and even ownership of, legal firms. Now they are busy gathering proxies with a view to possibly calling a special general meeting of the Society to consider reversing the 2008 AGM vote for change.
Meanwhile I have been personally and publicly criticised for "taking sides" with the Society in January's lead article "Who speaks for lawyers?"
I'll come back to that. Let me start by pointing out that the Journal has been attempting to flag up for the profession the likelihood of change of this sort ever since the OFT super-complaint in 2007 that started the whole process rolling. Our cover stories in both August and September that year, followed by the report in October of the special conference on the subject, clearly set out the issues at stake, and through the winter, as the Society's consultation on its policy options progressed, we did our best to raise the profile of the debate.
A further cover feature in April 2008, ahead of the crucial AGM, should have left no reader in doubt of the direction the Society proposed to travel in; and again in February last year, after the Scottish Government's own white paper was published, the Journal led with the likelihood of reform and the Society's support for the process. Forgive me then for being a little surprised that so many solicitors seem to have been unaware until so late in the day of what the reforms were likely to mean.
Against that background, when before Christmas voices were raised, in evidence to the Justice Committee examining the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill and otherwise, questioning the thrust of the measures and the likely role of the Society once they were implemented, it seemed only natural and timely to set out these views and give the Society the chance to put its position. That in essence is what the January lead set out to do. Read it for yourself and post your comment below, or to the article, whether you think it achieved this.
I also called in my editorial, and do so again, for a proper debate of the issues "with a clear head, an open mind, and a proper appreciation of the options up for discussion". It isn't too late to start, but I hope all concerned, if they are coming new to the subject, will accept the enabling role the Journal has attempted to play.