Third time lucky? Legal executives demand vote on SRA switch

Furious legal executives have – for the third time – demanded a special general meeting to vote on controversial plans for the Solicitors Regulation Authority to take over the regulation of CILEX members.

Former CILEX president Stephen Gowland submitted a fresh request on behalf of 70 fellows to CILEX chiefs on Friday.

Members have proposed amendments to the charter, bye-laws and standing orders. Another resolution calls for members to vote electronically on whether transferring regulation of legal executives from CILEx Regulation to the SRA is in the public and member interest. A two-thirds majority would be required for the regulatory switch. 

In an open letter seen by the Gazette, Gowland said he was willing to meet CILEX chiefs ‘and I again remind CILEX of the offer to mediate from a senior High Court judge’.

A CILEX spokesperson told the Gazette: ‘CILEX has received the notice and will respond once we have had opportunity to fully consider this latest request. However, we have previously published our position on why a member vote on matters related to our regulatory delegation is not permissible. That position has not changed.’

This is the third time that CILEX members have demanded an SGM to vote on matters including regulatory redelegation.

CILEX held an SGM on 11 January and posted a recording on its website. During the meeting, CILEX president Emma Davis referred to an ‘explanatory note’ attached to the agenda that explained why proposed resolutions in a notice submitted on 29 November ‘cannot be considered at this or any special general meeting’.

Members were ‘not permitted to vote or even influence decisions related to how or by whom you are regulated’ and CILEX was ‘not a representative body but a chartered institute with a public interest purpose and associated duties’, Davies said.

CILEX declared last month that it received 'strong support' from the profession, employers and consumers for its proposal but requested further assurances on issues such as the cost of regulation in light of the Axiom Ince case.

The SRA said it remained interested in regulating legal executives. However, Law Society chief executive Ian Jeffery told his counterpart at the SRA, Paul Philip, that the regulator's consumer research to help justify the proposals was flawed, several important questions remained unanswered, and the Law Society Council could potentially refuse to give consent to changes required for redelegation to take effect.

This article is now closed for comment.