In a letter to Granite Legal Services, seen by Irish Legal News, President of the Society Mark Borland makes reference to the Society’s Notice of Meeting which stated that: “Under the Society’s Royal Charter, the sole and entire management of the Society, including the appointment and removal of its officers and staff, is vested in the Council, subject to the powers expressly vested in General Meetings. Resolutions of a General Meeting expressing the views of members are advisory, and Council will give careful consideration to any such resolution passed.

“A resolution, which purports to direct Council, or to bring about a result which the Charter and Bye-Laws do not permit a General Meeting to achieve, will not have binding effect.”

The SGM, which is in fact two separate SGMs requisitioned on 6 August and 8 September, is due to take place on Monday 19 October. The SGMs were requisitioned by members following controversy over the Society’s handling of matters relating to its chief executive, David Lavery, and his provision of a good character reference for his cousin, William Lloyd-Lavery, who 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.

There are 7 motions to be considered at the first SGM which was originally due to take place on 9 September. Motions 1 through 3 are motions of no confidence in chief executive Mr David Lavery; the executive committee, Council and senior leadership of the Society and the Council’s handling of the Mr Lavery matter. Motions 4 through 7 are directions to the Council that include carrying out an independent review of the Society’s handling of the matter.

Mr Borland has now told solicitors that motions 4 through 7 will not be put to a vote at the SGM as, being framed as directions, they are “not within the competence of the Special General Meeting”.  Motions 1 through 3 will be put to a vote, but any outcome is advisory and “do not compel the Council to act in any particular way”.

Mr Borland added that: “that this is not in any way intended to stifle open and legitimate debate or discussion of members’ concerns, or to control opinion or dictate the outcome. It is simply to ensure that the Special General Meeting is conducted in a procedurally fair, correct and constructive manner.” He invited solicitors to redraft the motions 4 though 7 into “advisory terms”.

Mr Gervase Genity, of Granite Legal Services, commented: “The real issue is not any particular motion. The real issue is whether votes cast by members of the Law Society actually matter. The Society appears to be telling members that resolutions passed at a Special General Meeting are merely advisory. That is a remarkable proposition.

“Council manages the affairs of the Society, but it does so on behalf of the membership. Members are entitled to ask how they are supposed to hold the Society accountable if the outcome of a vote at a Special General Meeting can simply be characterised as advisory.”

He added: “The Society should explain clearly how it justifies that position under its constitution. If members cannot use a Special General Meeting as a meaningful mechanism of accountability, then serious questions arise about what purpose the Special General Meeting process is intended to serve.

“The question facing members with this latest development is simple; who ultimately governs the Society - its members or its Council?

“The answer to that question matters far beyond the events which gave rise to the present controversy. It goes to the heart of how the Society is governed and how its leadership is held accountable.”