Attorney raises concerns over motion to reduce practising fees

President of LATT Lynette Seebaran-Suite, SC. - File photo by Jeff K Mayers

A motion passed by a slim majority at a special general meeting (SGM) of the Law Association (LATT) on February 7, to reduce annual subscription fees has been called into question by a member who believes the decision may be unlawful.

In a letter to LATT president Lynette Seebaran-Suite, SC, attorney Keron Ramkhalwhan expressed serious concerns about the motion’s validity, arguing that it conflicted with the Legal Profession Act (LPA) and could impact the association’s ability to provide key benefits to members.

He argued that the fee reduction could not be lawfully made by way of a motion at a general meeting.

Ramkhalwhan said, “Having considered same, in the context of the legislation and the roles and responsibilities of the council of LATT, I am of the respectful view, that the fees could not be changed by way of a motion. Indeed, the motion itself was flawed, recited the wrong operative sections and I understand no amendments were made to same.”

Ramkhalwhan pointed out that Section 12 of the LPA specifically entrusts LATT’s council with the authority to set subscription fees.

He expressed concern that reducing fees could limit access to training seminars and other essential benefits offered by LATT.

Ramkhalwhan said LATT had a vital role in upholding the rule of law, and reducing its financial resources could compromise its ability to serve its members effectively.

“As legal practitioners we have a duty to at least ensure that our procedures accord with law. If this motion is permitted, it may undermine the intention of parliament in entrusting the Council with the power to manage the affairs of the association.

Ramkhalawhan recommended the

To address these concerns, he recommended the association’s council seek urgent legal advice on whether the motion was valid, suggesting possibly filing an interpretation summons to obtain a judicial ruling on the matter.

“LATT plays an indispensable role to the rule of law and if it is under-resourced the rule of law may be imperiled. While it may be a legitimate opinion that subscription fees be reduced, it must be reduced lawfully.”

Contacted by Newsday, Seebaran-Suite said the council was in the process of looking at the issues raised in the motion and would advise later on how and when changes would be implemented.

Dozens of attorneys submitted a requisition for the SGM on January 14. It alleged a lack of transparency, mismanagement of funds and questionable financial practices. It also called for a reduction in annual subscription fees.

Seebaran-Suite had dismissed the call, saying it would be foolhardy to lower fees at this time.

In a report to members, Seebaran-Suite said, “We are operating on 2007 fees, and inflation has cut into the value of the dollar.

“Inflation has meant that the 2024 dollar has 42 per cent less buying power than the 2007 dollar."

LATT now collects some $5.2 million in fees, with total operating expenses, including wages, projects, events and subsidies, amounting to $4 million, the report said.

She told members if the petition’s resolution were carried it would negatively affect LATT’s annual income, while savings to individual members would be “very small.”

“The annual subscription fees amount to no more than a few (no more than two) billable hours in any band of members.”

The association is also not entitled to collect fees from State lawyers, lawyers who are not practising or lawyers who have retired. It was also pointed out that a recommendation for increased salaries of the association's staff had not been implemented so salaries remained between 20 to 40 per cent lower than those in the corporate sector.

"While LATT has savings and reserves, it is poor governance to use those savings to take care of recurrent expenditure, building maintenance or routine new projects," a senior member of the association said.