The referendum called by the Scottish Law Agents Society on whether the profession should support the Legal Services Bill has been postponed amid rancour and concerns over the integrity of the voting.

The vote was postponed to an unspecified future date after a 5 minute comfort break at the meeting was extended amidst frantic discussion and deal making, after which there were further contributions for the motion from Thomsons and against by Dundas and Wilson, McGrigors and MacLays.

The referendum, attended by only 120 members, received some 3282 proxy votes, which SLAS President Michael Scanlan noted was a record. The proxy votes were split approximately 2000 or more in favour of the motion and around 900 against.

The meeting fell into confusion after President Ian Smart proposed that the meeting be adjourned. However it was pointed out that the Standing Orders did not allow proxies to be used on a Motion to adjourn, and accordingly the adjournment motion was carried by 76 of those in atendance to 34 against. 12 abstained, including Vice President Jamie Millar.

Despite points of order and a direct Motion of No Confidence in the President, which was ruled incompetent, the meeting was then adjourned.

“By a majority of 42 it was decided to disenfranchise some 3282 members of the profession. Whichever way people wanted to vote, it was hardly a glowing tribute to democracy and a united profession,” said David Flint of MacRoberts.

“Those who were in the 2000+ in favour of the motion and their representatives rightly believe that they have been marginalised on a technicality. Not a very good day for the profession - whatever one's views on the Motion,” he added.

President Ian Smart accepted that there was “no disguising that there are differing opinions within the profession on this.”

“However all sides must be happy that there is now a fuller engagement with these issues and it would be churlish not to acknowledge the contributions of the Scottish Law Agents in that process,” he said.

“It was clear that as the debate proceeded today, the two sides may not be as far apart as perceived prior to the meeting. The decision to adjourn was taken in the hope that we might yet reach agreement on a way forward that is acceptable to the vast majority of our membership.

“The Society’s referendum is currently underway and it would be inappropriate to stop that process. However, in any way forward it will remain the case that the Society’s Council will be informed not only by the referendum result, but by the sentiments and contributions expressed."

Mike Dailly of the Govan law Centre accused the Law Society of putting a “loaded” question before the vote that was “heavily weighted in its favour”, and proposed a simpler alternative.

As Scottish solicitors cast their votes in the 'Tesco Law' referendum (whether to embrace or reject the external ownership of law firms by non-solicitors) the Law Society has chosen to use a ‘loaded’ question, and called on Ian Smart to resign for “presiding over the most unfair and undemocratic process in the history of the Law Society of Scotland".

"At the heart of the Tesco Law debate is the concern there would be inappropriate safeguards to prevent solicitors being influenced by a vested corporate agenda to the detriment of the public. For the Law Society to phrase its question to assume there would be safeguards is nothing more than a shameless attempt to procure a yes vote," he said.

"The international and UK established practice in referenda is for questions to be framed as neutral, simple and unconditional, and for both sides of the argument to have a fair and level playing field when it comes to campaigning. That hasn’t happened as the Society has deployed all its staff and resources to campaign for a Tesco Law 'yes' vote. But now the referendum itself has been rigged by a loaded question.

"The Law Society’s President Ian Smart should hang his head in shame. The question should be reset in neutral terms, and Mr Smart should resign forthwith for presiding over the most unfair and undemocratic process in the history of the Law Society of Scotland".