The committee of the Glasgow Bar Association have issued a withering demolition of the Law Society's proposals for constitutional reform in their response to the consultation which closes tomorrow.

The association have said the proposals are designed to disenfranchise members, and accused the Society of proceeding with the consultation in a "premature" rush that was "insulting to the profession."

"We presume that the drafts on the Law Society website are intended to be some sort of joke. Effectively, they provide that under no circumstances will the membership ever have any say in what Council does or in the running of the Society," the response says.

"Clearly the attempt at democracy this year has so rattled the Executive that the membership require to be disenfranchised. Had these provisions been in place, none of the successes of the last year would have been possible. For example, even if a resolution were passed at a meeting with a 99% majority, the 60 (too many) members of Council can ignore it and the members have no redress.

"We are well aware of the procedural devices and machinations of Council and certain of its supporters in endeavouring to defeat motions advanced by such “extremists” or those “on the fringes” (being anyone who disagreed with Council/Law Society establishment) in the profession, such as the Scottish Law Agents Society. Indeed, the concern by the Society to prevent the membership from expressing its views on the SLAS motion, and its persistent adverse commentaries on the GBA in the last two years, following upon the SGM in August 2008 when the then Vice President stated openly that he had considered “rigging the vote” against the GBA, evinced behaviour which would not have been seen as out of place in a totalitarian regime.

"The Law Society of Scotland is a members’ organisation; its functions are set out clearly in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 which, in due course, may be amended by the present Legal Services (Scotland) Bill. To rush this consultation before the terms of the new Act have been settled is not only premature, it is insulting to the profession."

The response takes issue with the timescale in which the consultation has been carried out, and in particular claim the short timescale between the close of the consultation and the likely final closure of the draft constitution "hardly allows other organisations to obtain the views of its membership to the proposed changes."

"Putting it simply, the consultation is a charade and it is clear that the Council (or perhaps more precisely, the Executive) have no interest whatsoever in any views which might conflict with the wholly inappropriate power grab provided for in the drafts."

The response can be read in full here.