David Lavery

Mr Lavery lost his post as human rights commissioner in August following an independent investigation, pursuant to the Code of Governance of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, into his provision of a character reference for his paedophile cousin, William Llloyd-Lavery.

Mr Llloyd-Lavery was convicted in April of historical sex offences committed against female pupils at schools where he was employed as a teacher between 1975 and 1979. Mr Lavery provided his cousin with a character reference in which he referred to him as a Christian man and “a person of sound judgement and good character”.

Mr Lavery apologised and admitted to a “serious error of judgement.” The Law Society had opened its own internal process but stated at that time that it would make no further comment.

Members of the Society, however, expressed a loss of confidence in the leadership of the Society and, following receipt of 50 letters from members, a special general meeting (SGM) was called that was due to take place on 9 September.

However, members of the Society expressed concerns in advance of that meeting over lack of information and documentation allowing them to be properly prepared. In an email to members on 8 September the Society revealed that Mr Lavery had been found guilty of gross misconduct but received a sanction short of dismissal. The SGM was called off to be reconvened at a later date.

In an email to members yesterday morning president of the Law Society, Mark Borland, revealed the events that led to the postponement of the SGM including that Mr Lavery had sought “damages for what he alleged would be a breach of contractual and statutory obligations owed to him by the release of the information in the memo”.  That challenge also included “an application for emergency injunctive relief to bar communication of the memo and for Orders of anonymity and reporting restrictions,” more commonly known as a ‘super-injunction’.

That application was challenged by the Law Society and the Belfast Telegraph and the injunction was set aside on 17 September. Mr Borland’s email states that it was this order that precluded the Society from providing information to members in advance of the SGM.

Reporting from the Belfast Telegraph indicates that Mr Lavery’s substantive case is ongoing and is concerned with the terms and conditions of his employment contract and whether the Society’s Disciplinary Policy and Procedure formed part of that contract.

Jonathan McKeown, of JMK Solicitors, said in a statement following receipt of Mr Borland’s email to members: “Today’s disclosure by the Law Society inevitably raises further governance questions.

“Members now know that the Chief Executive was found guilty of gross misconduct by an independent disciplinary panel; that he declined to appeal that finding; and that he subsequently commenced proceedings against the Society arising from Council’s proposed disclosure of information concerning that process.

“Members have not been told whether the disciplinary finding arose solely from the provision of the character reference or whether it reflected the totality of the complaints considered by the panel. Clarification of that issue would assist transparency and informed debate ahead of the Special General Meeting.

“The continuing litigation also creates an unusual situation in which the serving Chief Executive and Secretary of the Society is engaged in legal proceedings against the organisation which he leads.

“Members are entitled to understand what governance and conflict-management arrangements are now in place, including how decisions concerning the defence of those proceedings are being taken and how the confidentiality and privilege of the Society’s legal advice and litigation strategy are being protected.

“These developments also reinforce an important distinction which I have raised throughout this process. The disciplinary panel determined an employment sanction on the matters before it and within whatever constraints it may have been subject to.

“The question whether the Chief Executive continues to command the confidence of the profession is a separate governance question for members, taking account of all relevant circumstances, including events which have occurred since the disciplinary determination.

“There are now two requisitions for Special General Meetings, both of which are to be dealt with on 19 October. Members should receive the fullest information which can lawfully be provided well in advance of that date so that the profession can reach its own informed conclusions.

“This debate should not become personal. There is a human being with rights behind these events and that should never be forgotten. Equally, compassion towards an individual and proper scrutiny of the governance of our professional body are not mutually exclusive.

“The objective should now be transparency, proper governance and restoring confidence in the Law Society amongst the profession it exists to serve.”