The meeting was triggered in August when 50 members of the Society sent in letters calling for an SGM to address the Society’s handling of the controversy surrounding its chief executive, David Lavery.

The letter notes that: “the Society has accepted that the issues giving rise to the need for this meeting include concerns regarding transparency and good governance as to how these matters were handled from the outset,” but that there remains “considerable concern among members as to the precise nature of the processes undertaken, the scope of any review or investigation conducted, and ultimately, the reasoning and evidential basis which led to the conclusions reached by the Society.”

The letter further raises concerns with regard to the SGM itself noting a “continuing lack of clarity” and that members have yet to receive information and documentation to allow them to be properly informed and prepared for the meeting.

The letter notes that members have not yet received draft motions, polls or resolutions due to be considered at the meeting or advance disclosure of relevant documentation and information which they consider necessary to fully understand and assess the matters which will likely be discussed and upon which they may ultimately be asked to vote.

The disclosure that they are asking for includes the full character reference that Mr Lavery provided to his cousin William Llloyd-Lavery, who was convicted in April of historical sexual offences committed against female pupils at schools where he was employed as a teacher between 1975 and 1979.

The letter also raises concerns about voting arrangements stating: “Our members have indicated they consider a vote via show of hands would be entirely inappropriate in the circumstances and may discourage members from participating fully in the meeting.”

The BSA asks for a process that protects the confidentiality of members’ votes and states that: “members must be able to participate freely and express their views without fear of personal criticism nor any perceived repercussions”.

Separately solicitor Johnathan McKeown of JMK Solicitors has called on the Society to give unequivocal assurances that:

• that neither it, its officers nor anyone communicating on its behalf would seek publicly, privately or by way of background briefing to disparage or undermine members who have requisitioned the SGM, supported the motions or spoken publicly about these issues,
• that no solicitor or practice would suffer adverse regulatory, professional or other treatment as a consequence of participating in this debate in good faith,
• to reassure members that passing the motions would not result in institutional instability or prevent the Society from continuing to perform its functions — and, if the Society disagreed, to explain precisely why.

Mr McKeown put these requests to the Society in writing on 27 August and to date has received no response.

Mr Lavery lost his post as human rights commissioner in August, as a consequence of having given the character reference to his cousin, following an independent investigation pursuant to the Code of Governance of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

The Law Society opened its own internal investigation but has repeatedly said that it considers the matter closed.

One solicitor, who did not wish to be named, told the Belfast Telegraph that there is a loss of confidence in the leadership of the Society and that they have not met a solicitor yet who thinks Mr Lavery should still be in the job. However, many are reluctant to openly criticise the leadership.

Mr McKeown previously told BBC’s Good Morning Ulster programme yesterday that the issue had “spiralled away” from Mr Lavery and become one of public trust in the Society.

Speaking to Good Morning Ulster on 14 August Mr Borland said that he gave Mr Lavery “his support to “continue as chief executive of the Law Society of Northern Ireland and to move us forward”.