This blog has argued that the failure of the Law Society to furnish its members with the opinions and advices, upon which the Council of the Law Society say they are relying, is not acceptable.
The Council members have made their decisions, on the SMDF debacle, on foot of those opinions. If they do not give the members the opportunity to read the same material, they are not in fact submitting the problem to the members for decision.
Instead, they are submitting themselves to the members as the issue.
they are saying.
Remarkably, as they do this, they fall below a standard that even the SMDF has managed to achieve; not one Council member, not the Director General, has personally subscribed to the information and views in the “briefing note” the Law Society distributed to its members on the SMDF crisis. If there is error or falsehood in that paper, the members have no identifiable individual person whom they can later make accountable.
Connected with that point, but a separate issue of great importance is this; who, among the Council members, is relying on the SMDF for insurance? And which of them has lodged a claim with SMDF?
Are they urging the SMDF bailout to the members? Do they not see that they are conflicted? Do they not subscribe to a personal moral standard that would oblige them to reveal this to the general membership?
In the same vein, is it not obvious that no solicitor induced to take “insurance” cover with SMDF can be said to be acting in the interests of the Law Society when he or she votes in the postal poll?