THE Faculty of Advocates does not have its problems to seek.

The rise of solicitor-advocates has squeezed income; asset sell-offs and staff redundancies have proved necessary. This is an organisation that is not thriving, yet other groups of lawyers do not seem to be struggling in this way.

To understand why this should be so, the obvious place to start is to examine how the place is actually run, to see if that could be improved upon. And it is clear that there are serious problems over openness and accountability.

There are six advocates who hold executive office, by election; they are known as the faculty office bearers. All six are ex officio members of a representative body called the faculty council. The remaining dozen or so members of the council, who are non-executive, are advocates elected or re-elected by secret ballot for a three-year term or co-opted onto the body. The council, which is chaired by the Dean, is empowered to take important decisions on behalf of the faculty membership as a whole.

But the council's deliberations are not well publicised. The faculty membership, which elects the council, is not routinely informed as to when it is going to meet, far less what it is going to discuss and decide upon.

Faculty office bearers used to have to report routinely to the faculty council, with the minutes of the council meetings then being placed in members' boxes. But this was stopped, without notice or explanation.

But the chronic lack of transparency in the faculty's governance is only part of a more generalised problem of lack of accountability within this ancient organisation. A much greater difficulty lies in the arrangements under which the faculty office bearers hold office.

It is the Faculty of Advocates' proud boast that it is a democratic institution, but this isn't altogether the case. All six office bearers, including the Dean of Faculty, are elected by secret ballot, it is true, but each holds office only until the anniversary meeting of the faculty, which is held on the third Wednesday in January. Then each office bearer is offered up for re-election not by secret ballot but by open vote, at the meeting itself.

The Dean of Faculty opens proceedings by asking any faculty members present whether it is the will of the faculty that he should continue in office for another year. The members respond by tapping their feet on the parquet flooring to signify their assent. Nobody dissents. Ever.

The Dean then asks successively whether it is the will of the faculty that each of the other office bearers continues in office for another year. Each time the response is the same: tap, tap, tap.

To successfully oppose the re-election of the Dean or any of the other office bearers therefore requires an advocate to institute an ugly confrontation with the leader of his profession, effectively telling him to his face that he, or another office bearer, is no good, and then hoping for backing from a sufficient number of the other advocates present.

No surprise then that every single faculty office bearer has been unanimously re-elected at every single anniversary meeting of the Faculty of Advocates since 1796. And this of course amounts to automatic re-election for those in power.

If you wanted to invent a system of government that effectively excludes accountability at every level, this would be it. It is no wonder that advocates are losing ground to competitors.

Change can only come about with the wholehearted support of the leadership. I call upon the newly-elected Dean, James Wolffe, QC, to give a lead.

Siggi Bennett,

Advocate,

Parliament House, Edinburgh.