Faced with the prospect of certain death “On the Road”, Cormac McCarthy brings a post apocalyptic father and son to life with some
profound dialogue:

“We’re going to be okay aren’t we papa?”
“Yes. We are.”
“And nothing bad is going to happen to us?”
“That’s right.”
“Because we’re carrying the fire”
“Yes. Because we’re carrying the fire.”

The fire, in the end, killed the father. His determination to prove to his son that the fire should never stop burning, eventually cost him his health, his mind and ultimately his life. But the fire didn’t die. His son picked up the torch.

To move from the subliminal post apocalyptic, to, well, er, the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland, and the President’s column in
particular (March 2010) , one finds oneself comparing metaphors:

“Just as the abolition of the conveyancing scale fee did not bring about the end of civilization as we knew it, any more than did the
creation of a network of law centres or the imposition of the summary criminal fixed fee, so ABS will not be the end of the world.” Ian
Smart wrote. “Nor will the removal of the Law Society’s representative function” the President could have continued. But, of course, he didn’t.

Everything and everyone must change, it seems, apart from the “dual functions” of the Law Society of Scotland.

In all the debate about whether the Legal Services Bill compromises the independence of the profession from the Scottish Ministers, or whether it gives the Government undue influence or control over our representative Council, I have not yet heard one argument advanced as to why it does not do either of those. Plenty of accusations about how the section is being misinterpreted or its provisions misrepresented, but nothing about how it enhances, increases or secures this profession’s independence from Government. When presented with reasons as to why it does none of these things then all the Law Society can say is:

“We’re going to be ok.”
“Are we?”
“Yes we are. And nothing bad is going to happen to us.”
“Is that right?”
“Yes. Because we’re carrying a letter from the Cabinet Secretary saying so”

The Law Society has to acknowledge that its “dual functions” are incompatible with section 92 of the Legal Services Bill. Until it
does, and accepts therefore that it has to relinquish its statutory entitlement to them, it will be forever fire fighting. Its decision to
refuse to include a question on a central part of the Legal Services Bill - reform of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland - on a
referendum on the other aspects of the Bill fuels that fire.

If it does acknowledge the inevitable, and accepts that it can only regulate in a post ABS world, it should be reassured that it will be
passing on the torch to its members. The very same members that it purports to represent, promote and market. Now how can that be a bad thing?

Unless of course, the fire being carried is self interest.

John McGovern is President of the Glasgow Bar Association