Meet the new Chief Executive

John Wall, honorary secretary of the Group for Solicitors with Disabilities, interviewed Des Hudson on 14 November, 2006.

Mr. Hudson took up his duties as Chief Executive of the Law Society on 6 September, 2006

JW.:  Do you have any personal experience of disability?

DH.:  If you mean personal experience in my family, no; but I have a very close friend who was disabled as a result of an accident.  I know what he has to put up with.    Personal experience is a very effective educator - much more so than just reading about disability.

JW.:    Do you know any disabled solicitors?

DH.:  No.

JW.:  Do you know of the social model of disability? 

DH.: I think I do, and you can correct me if I get this wrong:  it is the hypothesis that the issue of disability is all based around discrimination.  A disabled person does not have a disadvantage because of impairment but rather through the way in which they experience or suffer discrimination because of the way that society is organised.  For example, lack of accessibility to public services, failure to remove barriers.

JW.:  What impact do you feel it should have on the Law Society’s work?

DH.:  I am particularly interested in removing barriers caused by assumptions and stereotyping:  putting in ramps and so on    is important, of course.  But Putting in ramps and decent signage is comparatively easy to deal with.  Conceptual issues are more difficult to cope with - but they are the challenge for the Law Society.

We want to start by making sure that the management team will instinctively think how its activities, its products, its services as well as facilities are made accessible to everyone, irrespective of whether not a person has some physical or mental impairment. 

Secondly, I want to get ingrained into our thinking that, if someone is coming in, we will routinely check to see if he or she has specialised needs, and, if so, how do we cater for those needs?  We must be creative in the ways in which we make reasonable adjustments.  I am anxious to ensure that we have the highest level of participation in all that the Law Society is doing.  If there are barriers, we must do something about removing them.

Thirdly, I want to look at what is happening about employment policies at the Law Society.  Do we have under-representation of people with disabilities?  If so, what can we do about it?  Are we doing enough to support existing staff who might have a physical or mental impairment?  My perception is that we do not look at these issues regularly.  Some dialogue between the Society and those staff cannot be anything but healthy.

JW.:  Is it worth looking at the two ticks scheme?  An employer with that "kite mark” undertakes that, if a job applicant has the basic skills required by the job description, he or she will be afforded a face to face interview.  The Law Society seems at present to have some hesitation in adopting the scheme.

DH.:  I am saying to the management team that I want this place to adopt the best practice.  One task I have set is to look at the benchmarks or independent assessments which we might seek to utilise, particularly in the context of human resources.  I am agnostic about the award of "Investor In People."  Are there different types of assessment, of standards, of best practice?  Age discrimination is another issue we must consider.

JW.:  I presume that you are aware of the public sector duties under Section 49 of the Disability Discrimination Act.  Do you support the decision we understand has been made to comply with the duty, in relation to all the Society’s functions, regardless of whether they are technically covered by the duty?
 
DH.:  We are working on the basis that the scheme will apply throughout the organisation.

JW.:  Have you yourself had input into the draft Disability Equality Scheme being prepared for submission to Law Society Council by Manjot Dhanjal?

DH.: I know the broad policy parameters we are choosing.  My input so far has been limited, but I will have more input in this final phase, as we prepare the text which is going to go in front of Council.  I am conscious of the help and support we have had from GSD.

JW.:    What priority will you give to implementing and reviewing the Scheme?

DH.:  We are in the midst of preparing our proposals to go to Council  at its December meeting about our 2007 business plan and budget.  We will be submitting a report to Council by the external evaluator on Equality and Diversity issues.  In the light of his report, we will work out what the next phase of our E. and D. work will be.  Matters of concern in the Disability Equality Scheme are likely to be incorporated into the 2007 plans.    We do, however, have major IT problems - our database, our website - which must be addressed as a priority. I must get those basic infrastructure blocks in place first.

JW.  Reference to papers going to Council prompts me to raise a general issue:  My impression is that there is a culture of secrecy at the Law Society.  Would you be willing to review the whole question what papers are confidential, and what are "public"?      For example, shall we see the report of the E. and D. evaluator?

DH.:  As I understand it, we currently have a policy that we voluntarily comply with "freedom of information" (FOI).  We are a bit unsure about the issue you raise.  One of the tasks we have for 2007 is to try to clarify our policy.  We would want to make material as open as possible, particularly so in the case of members.  Openness is a key point for a modern professional, representative body.  Our members need to know what we are doing - what our policy is - so if they do not like it, they can raise questions, they can seek to influence it.  

JW.:  Do you think the responses to the Have Your Say Consultation with the profession, limited as they were to less than 20% of practitioners, have provided a "democratic" steer for the Law Society Council to work on?

DH.:  I guess that colleagues here at the time would have preferred 80%!  Does the result give us a steer?  Yes, I think it does.  The questionnaire was only part of the consultation process.  Members of Council have constituents they are in contact with.  Their views are informed by local law societies.  We rely on a wide-ranging series of ways in which we try to understand membership views.  With most similar bodies, participation rates are not high.  We shall have to look at improving communication to and from the membership. 

JW.  Talking to solicitors, I have gained the impression that many of them are anti-Law Society, because, in the past, it has always seemed to be mainly interested in regulation.  A representational body could be militant?

DH.  I prefer to use the word robust.

JW.:  I believe it has been suggested that duty solicitors might (in effect) go on strike, and the Law society says that, if it encouraged strike action, it might run into trouble under the Competition Act, 1998.

DH.:  The practical implications of the separation of regulation and representation are going to be far-reaching.  The solicitor’s regulation authority reminds solicitors of their contractual and professional obligations.  No solicitor will decide, lightly, to "work to rule."  Members are angry because of the way the government seems to want to implement Carter.  The representational body's position is complex:  Under the Competition Act, the Law Society is likely to be classified as a trade association.  If a trade association or its staff on its behalf issues an instruction or advise members in some way to "distort the market" by restricting their availability to work, that could be unlawful.  Even without that legal problem, there is a delicate balance about what the Law Society would choose to say in this situation.  We will be robust in taking the concerns and anxieties of our members to the government in this instance.

JW.:  Another issue in connection with the representational role of the Law Society has to do with human rights.  I represent GSD on the Domestic Human rights Reference Group.  One of that group's members is concerned that the Law society has decided to withdraw from sponsoring the human rights awards.  Is this an irretrievable decision?

DH.:    I believe the decision to withdraw from sponsoring the awards was, at thee time,  made in good faith.    If the Council accepts what I am proposing in the business plan and budget for 2007, the decision is not irretrievable for the future.  I would argue that the Law Society has a role to play in relation to human rights, because it is the right thing for a lawyers' organisation to be doing; and it is good in terms of brand, reputation, kudos, whatever word you want to use.  I must stress, however, that issues of strategy and the business plan are in the gift of Council.

JW.:   The Law Society’s Recognised Groups, of which GSD is one, are grassroots organisations that work directly with solicitors.  Do you agree that GSD has a vital role to play in the Society's decision-making?

DH.:  GSD, like any other comparable group, must have a role to play    in our decision-making.  "Vital"?  We have a diverse membership and we need to have a number of channels to and from the membership to get their views, and GSD is clearly an important part of that.

JW.:  Do you support GSD continuing to have a seat on the Council?

DH.:  That is not my decision.  IT is a matter for Council.  My guess is that the kind of blend we have now - geographical constituencies and sectional constituencies - will endure. 

JW.:  If it does not, how will the Law Society ensure that its practices, policies and procedures reflect and promote the particular needs and aspirations of disabled solicitors?

DH.:  I do not have ideas in the sense of a plan that I am about to roll out.  If at some point council made a change involving GSD losing its seat, the need for communication of informed comment and contribution from GSD would be as important then as it is now.  The Law Society would have to engage with GSD in different ways.  I am confident that we could    find an effective means of seeking input.  Technology opens up lots of choices there.

JW.: How do you see the fruitful partnership between the Law Society and GSD being  maintained and developed?

DH.:  I foresee the maintenance and growth in the richness and quality of the relationship.  The ways to do this are as follows:-

Who better than GSD to be able to inform and instruct and comment about the obstacles that their members face on entry to the profession or progression within the profession?  We would have to be a very dumb secretariat not to want to tap that rich vein of knowledge and practical awareness.

Beyond that, what it requires is an open and confident relationship - confident in the sense that we would have    the ability to disagree, knowing that we were not going to reconvene to continue the debate:  Robust, candid discussion, the floating of ideas, the acceptance of constructive criticism: if we have got it wrong, you telling us:  if we think you are being overweening in a particular proposition, our having the confidence to tell you - because we are aware that the bond between us is strong.  That is the way in which I would want to keep the partnership nurtured and flourishing. 

JW.:  Do you foresee the continuation of the recognised groups agreements as such?

DH.:  I am not sure.  I think we have to work out how we are going to adapt to change.  That requires a high degree of consensus.  The recognised groups’ agreements were, as I understand it, a mechanism to deal with the last round of change.  The agreement will have to evolve and adapt, just as we all do. 

JW.:  Mr. Hudson, thank you very much for giving time to answer our questions.

More than six months have elapsed since the above interview took place.  In December, 2006, the Law Society's Council published its disability equality scheme; business plans have been prepared; early in 2007, GSD received a copy of the report of the Equality and Diversity Evaluator, Prof. Gus John - greater openness!  Other steps foreshadowed in the interview are progressing slowly.  GSD for the present retains a seat on the Law Society's Council; discussions about the future of the recognised groups’ agreement have been initiated.  "D.H." is proving to be "as good as his word.").

John Wall