Sweeping constitutional change for the Phillip Street lawyers’ temple … Handing control to the top dogs … Resistance mounts … AGM looms … Patronage possibilities … NZ Law Society loses a president … Cultural review … Theodora files
Up for consideration by the rank ‘n’ file is a proposal to restructure the council of the society – to reduce its size from 21 to 15 members; put a tenure limit of three consecutive terms as a councillor; require members seeking election to submit a “skills-focussed CV”; allow the president to serve for up to three years; and to abolish the position of treasurer, instead having the chair of the audit, risk and finance committee appointed by the council each year.
The driving force behind the proposed constitutional changes is former president Juliana Warner from Herbert Smith Freehills.
Consultants have been hired, a working group formed, stakeholders engaged, surveys conducted – and here we are on the cusp of change, although members are scratching their heads wondering what is it all about.
Why is there a need for change – i.e. what is the problem?
At the moment there are two slots on council for each of what is termed “reserved positions” – city, country, suburban, large firm, corporate, plus government solicitors.
The plan calls for these positions to be cut from two to one representative for each of the six reserved areas of practice. Straight away that gets the council down from 21 to 15, while the young lawyer slot and the eight unreserved positions can stay numerically untouched.
A cap on tenure is also proposed, with a maximum of three 3-year consecutive terms, instead of endless 3-year terms. After the maximum number of terms has been served, there’s to be a gap of another three years before a member can stand again for election.
Intriguingly, while other councillors get a limit on time in the saddle, the proposal is that president can keep going for another two terms, i.e. three years in total.
This would apply, it is claimed, only in “specific and exceptional circumstances” – such as the completion of a key strategic priority.
Nothing particularly exceptional about that, as there’ll always be unfinished priorities than can keep a president for an extended stretch on the payroll.
Some councillors and many members see the governance and composition proposals as a way to entrench the Law Society under the control of large firms, big city solicitors and corporate lawyers.
With a representative from the government services sector, the reserved council positions could arguably amount to four of the 15 voices around the table, and with four more from the unreserved positions the big shots would have the numbers.
The way the review was put to council brought about a degree of unhappiness – presented as it was three days before councillors were to vote on it.
It was pushed through by the executive members, who spoke to rank and file councillors so as to limit dissent about the merits of the scheme.
Councillors asked for more time for debate, but that didn’t happen. At least one person abstained because consideration of the report was too rushed.
Normally, a organisation with group net assets of $280 million and annual revenue of $140 million, seeking to alter its constitution, would put to its members arguments FOR and AGAINST the change.
Not here, the membership simply received the case FOR the new structure.
Opposition to the changes is mounting and, meanwhile, more and more unhappy staff are bailing out of the society’s Phillip Street temple.
There were rumblings in August when the law society sent six members of the council, and the CEO, on a junket to Chicago, flying business class and camping in top end hotels, plus additional transfer costs and per diems.
The jaunt was timed so the phalanx from Sydney could attend the annual knees-up of the American Bar Association.
These perks are within the gift of the president at any given time, and the patronage may be a way for a future president to secure support from councillors to stay at the helm longer than the traditional one year term of office.
Across the Tasman we find the New Zealand Law Society in turmoil.
President Jacque Lethbridge resigned on October 3 following a “culture review” that was critical of her “aggressive and irrational” behaviour.
The review was conducted by the former NZ solicitor general Mike Heron KC “against a backdrop of a breakdown in the relationship between the president and the chief executive of the Law Society”.
On receiving Heron’s report the society announced Lethbridge’s resignation “effective immediately”.
She was elected president in April and is now out six months later.
Dunedin solicitor Frazer Barton was briskly swept in to fill the vacancy.
Jacque left the building saying:
“I am reflecting on how my approach and communication style – which is without doubt direct and exacting – has been the experience of some in that environment.”