The Law Society of Northern Ireland tells members that motions at its special general meetings will not necessarily bind its Council, setting up a dispute over how members can hold the organization accountable. President Mark Borland said four proposed motions directing Council will not be put to a vote because they fall outside the meetings’ powers.
Two separate special general meetings, requisitioned on 6 August and 8 September, are due to take place on Monday 19 October. The first was originally scheduled for 9 September. The meetings followed controversy over the Society’s handling of chief executive David Lavery and a character reference he provided for his cousin, William Lloyd-Lavery.
William Lloyd-Lavery was convicted in April of historical sex offences against female pupils at schools where he worked as a teacher between 1975 and 1979.
Law Society of Northern Ireland Sets Limits on Member Motions
Seven motions are due for consideration at the first meeting. Motions 1 through 3 express no confidence in David Lavery, the executive committee, Council and the Society’s senior leadership, and in Council’s handling of the Lavery matter.
Motions 4 through 7 would direct Council to take actions, including commissioning an independent review of the Society’s handling of the matter. Borland told solicitors those motions would not be put to a vote because, as drafted, they direct Council and are “not within the competence of the Special General Meeting.”
He said the first three motions would be voted on, but any result would be advisory and would not compel Council to act in a particular way. A notice of meeting, cited in Borland’s letter to Granite Legal Services, says the Society’s Royal Charter places its sole and entire management, including appointing and removing officers and staff, with Council, subject to powers expressly given to general meetings.
The notice says resolutions expressing members’ views are advisory and Council will consider them carefully. It also says a resolution cannot bind Council if it seeks a result the Charter and Bye-Laws do not permit a general meeting to deliver.
Borland said the position was not intended to prevent open discussion or control members’ views. He described it as a way to ensure the meeting was conducted fairly, correctly and constructively. He invited solicitors to redraft motions 4 through 7 in advisory terms.
Members Question the Value of the Vote
Gervase Genity of Granite Legal Services said the central issue was whether members’ votes at a special general meeting matter. He argued that Council manages the Society on behalf of its membership and asked how members could hold it accountable if a vote could be characterized as advisory.
Genity called on the Society to explain how its position fits its constitution. He said the latest development raises questions about the purpose of the special general meeting process if members cannot use it as a meaningful accountability mechanism.
His comments frame the disagreement around the relationship between Council’s stated authority and members’ ability to express their views through formal motions. The Society’s notice says Council will consider advisory resolutions, while the proposed directions will not be voted on in their current form.
The meetings are scheduled for Monday 19 October. Members may also redraft motions 4 through 7 as advisory proposals, following Borland’s invitation.
The three no-confidence motions will be advisory under Borland’s position. The wider question raised by Genity is how the Society’s members can use its meeting process to hold its leadership accountable. Other Law Society coverage has examined governance debates at a society meeting, leadership priorities at a Law Society presidency, and representation within a national law society.
The meetings will show whether motions are recast in advisory terms. Council’s role and members’ influence remain central to the dispute.
