The vexed Section 92 of the Legal Services bill, which proposed allowing an unspecified proportion of Government representatives onto the Law Society Council, has been removed from the bill after a debate which slammed the move as "potentially destructive".

John McGovern, President of the Glasgow Bar Association, who had raised his concerns about the idea exclusively in the Firm, said the vote was a "major success."

"This has been a long, difficult campaign. However, the Council of the Law Society of Scotland will now be representative only, with no obligation for lay membership. Lay membership will only be necessary for the Regulatory Committee. We will now have a democratically elected Council which represents only. It's very good news for the profession. The "dual functions" have effectively been separated within the Bill," he told the Firm exclusively.

Robert Brown MSP said the proposal had " the potential to be quite destructive in terms of the whole basis on which the Law Society of Scotland operates—and should operate."

" It is true that, since the society's foundation in 1949, there has been a tension between its representative and regulatory functions, which has raised issues from time to time. That has been the case recently, with the society engaging in discussions about the bill. However, the tension has not proved to be unmanageable," he said.

"There is no totally satisfactory division between the two functions of regulation and representation. Issues concerning risk, the master policy, the guarantee fund or standards might be regarded as regulatory, but they go to the heart of the professional standards that the Law Society trains its members to maintain and understand, and of how solicitors operate in general. The tension seems to be creative, not destructive.

"The Law Society of Scotland was rightly and properly set up on a basis that unites the two strands, which come together in the council of the society. Other bodies have a representational function to a more limited degree, for example the Scottish Law Agents Society, the Glasgow Bar Association, the Royal Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow and other local bodies of that sort. They contribute to the representative side, but they cannot replace the Law Society's national role in that regard.

"Amendment 373 proposes a major and fundamental change. I believe that it has not been consulted on, discussed or decided on by the Law Society. If there is to be a debate about the amendment—which is entirely proper—such consultation should precede it."

Law Society President Jamie Millar said: “The Society takes its responsibility to protect consumers very seriously and has for many years had a number of regulatory committees with 50% solicitors and lay members to ensure that public interest is being represented and that action can be taken against solicitors who are not meeting the required professional standard. However, as a membership body we have a clear obligation to represent our members’ interests and provide the professional support that they require. It would have been contrary to the Society’s duties to its members to allow ministers, even as a last resort, rather than the profession alone to shape its Council and I think the amendments passed today will help ensure the right balance.

“We all recognise that there needs to be a careful balancing act and that at times the tension between regulating and representing our members can create challenges, but I would echo Robert Brown MSP by saying it is a ‘creative’ rather than ‘destructive’ tension which helps to maintain the high standards that we expect our members to work to.”

The transcript of the debate and vote can be read here.