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.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article