Consider; the Council shows no sign of devoting energy to meeting the challenge of the IMF/ECB bailout terms; instead it is navel gazing at a failed project of the past.
To find out what the Law Society may do in relation to PI insurance for solicitors, just read Section 26 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1984;
The Council of the Law Society is about to crash and burn, whatever the outcome of the postal poll.
t is a breach of corporate law and good governance to allow such a situation to arise, Even if the proposal is carried, it is open to challenge in the High Court because of the breach of fiduciary duty by the Council.
They have no interest in justifying the proposed SMDF bailout by reference to statute. Even it they did, they would have a problem; there is no statutory power in the Law Society to levy a bailout of the SMDF on Law Society members.
An unknown number of the Council members of the Law Society are insured with the SMDF. They are, consequently, members of the SMDF. Although unknown, the number must be large because they chose as their spokesman a person who is a member of the SMDF.
The bailout by the Law Society will allow them, like war criminals amongst refugees, to discard their “uniforms”, destroy their party records and vanish, for a time at least, into the general population of innocent solicitors.
As for the directors of SMDF, there are two questions.
A) Do you accept responsibility for the mis-management of SMDF, resulting in its insolvency?
B) If you deny SMDF is (or will be) insolvent how do you think you can persuade a court to appoint a liquidator to a solvent company, as your letter seems to suggest?