The Law Society has dropped a plan to cut short the term of the Solicitors Regulation Authority board as debate continues over ways to tackle the disproportionate number of black and minority ethnic (BME) solicitors facing disciplinary hearings. It has also turned down a proposal to co-opt two non-voting BME members on to the board.

Sundeep Bhatia, chairman of the Society of Asian Lawyers, condemned the latter as ‘short-sighted, unrepresentative and contemptuous of the views of BME organisations’.

Law Society Council representatives made the decision in a private meeting last week. It followed advice from Chris Kenny, chief executive of the Legal Services Board.

In a letter dated 3 March, seen by the Gazette, Kenny said any alteration of the board’s term would ‘set a dangerous precedent in the context of regulatory independence generally’ and the board ‘would comment adversely and publicly if any approved regulator sought to exercise such a power over its independent regulatory arm’.

The LSB also opposed the co-option proposal because it could create ‘a perception of second-class status’. Co-option was a response to Lord Ouseley’s 2008 report on BME solicitors and disciplinary hearings.

Antony Townsend, the SRA’s chief executive, said he was ‘disappointed’ that co-option will not go ahead but will continue working with BME groups to ‘increase involvement and understanding of our work.’

The Law Society said the council’s main reason for not supporting co-option was that ‘co-options are inconsistent with the principle of appointment on merit after open competition, and the SRA had failed to provide sufficient reason for departing from that important principle. We are now concentrating on ensuring that the arrangements for appointing the new board are beyond reproach.’