Dead and buried or ready for a best of three? These are certainly two ways of looking at it. The legal profession voted broadly in favour of separate representation at the Annual General Meeting of the Law Society in March 2013 and then voted against it at a Special General Meeting on 23 September 2013. At one vote each then we should perhaps now move towards a decider.
To be more specific, the AGM of voted in favour of a request that the Council of the Law Society (CLSS) take forward a proposal to consider the mandatory separate representation of borrowers and lenders in mortgage transactions. The SGM in September, however, found that a draft practice rule proposed by CLSS did not adequately deal with the issues arising from separate representation as set out in a working party report and in responses to a consultation. The general principle of Law Society support for separate representation remains in place but the terms of a proposed, draft practice rule have been rejected. On the face of it, therefore, it is now for CLSS, or some other inspired author, to come up with a more acceptable practice rule. Unless, of course, the hint is taken that separate representation is now going nowhere.
Where does this leave SLAS? That is not for me to say but only for me to ask the membership. Does the membership who voted about 40:1 in favour of separate representation wish their own Council to continue down the road towards separate representation or give up the ghost? Answers please by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org