The Law Society briefing note to the members of the solicitors’ profession has this statement:
“The Society has not relied in any way on advisors of the SMDF.”
Why not? Is one expert (particularly “legal experts”) not as good as another?
The answer is, no they are not. It is very easy to get the advice you want by choosing a person who either thinks as you do, or fashions an opinion to suit the client.
That is why the Council of the Law Society has not relied on the SMDF advisors (or its directors, presumably).
There are big problems for the Council in adopting this course of action: either their own legal advisor will appear to have been chosen for underhand reasons of chicanery or/and the Council will be deprived of the very best advice on the issues most affecting the SMDF and its members. Surely the SMDF and its advisors are the experts in that area?
After all, the Council’s briefing note to the profession claims;
“…the SMDF is a separate entity from the Society and is not, and never has been owned, controlled, directed or regulated by the Society”.
Currently, there appears to be a difference of opinion between the Council of The Law Society and the SMDF as to the “benefits” of liquidation of SMDF.
SMDF does not, it seems, see liquidation as a disaster for the solicitors relying on it for indemnity, whereas the Law Society is adamant in its assertions that the sky will fall on every solicitor in the event of liquidation of SMDF.
Where is the source of this darkness and who, exactly, is the Cassandra being listened to by the Council?
Why is that opinion, if it exists, not published to the profession?