Four members of the Law Society Council, including three voted onto the Council last week on an anti-ABS stance, have publicly called for the profession to vote against the Law Society's continued representation of members in the forthcoming referendum.

Council Members Walter Semple, John McGovern,  David O'Hagan and Mike Dailly have signed an open letter arguing that the dual aims of the Society - to represent both the profession and the public- cannot be sustained whilst membership of the Society is compulsory adding that the position threatens the independence of the profession.

"The truth of the matter is that there is not another democratic country in the world that has deregulated its legal market, and yet still has a solicitors’ governing body representing and regulating. The profession owes it to itself to at least consider separating the functions of the Law Society," the letter says.

"Historically, its policy of compulsory membership was perfectly understandable: to ensure the highest of standards and thus offer enhanced public protection. However, when solicitors’ independence is undermined in the manner proposed in the Legal Services Bill, then the compulsory membership dynamic becomes a problem. Not least because European jurisprudence suggests that compulsory membership of professional bodies can only be compatible when those bodies remain independent.

"If there is external ownership of law firms, as the Bill proposes, then surely it cannot be suggested that the profession will remain independent? Independent of whom? To some, there is no difficulty in the public being directly involved in representing solicitors. That being so, then they can choose that the Law Society continues to represent them. But for others, the compromises to our independence are too great to envisage and a choice should now be allowed.

"The notion that the profession could not organize itself adequately, into independently constituted representative bodies working within a Joint National Council framework, is to do it a disservice. These bodies already have highly developed education, training and law reform infrastructures. For those that don’t, then the saving practitioners will make of around £3.5M per year in practising certificate fees could be re-invested, if so desired. When the Law Society says it wouldn’t work, it infers that the current arrangement does work. But there are not many solicitors who voted “no” in the last referendum who feel that the Law Society is working for them at present. We suspect many who voted “yes” are unhappy with how matters have been handled by the Law Society."

The letter can be read in full here.