BULLY FOR BAHL

Martin Mears interviews the former vice-president of the Law Society and finds her in fighting form

THIS summer Miss Kamlesh Bahl, the for- mer chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, was due to progress from the vice-presidency to the presidency of the Law Society amid, no doubt, the custom- ary plaudits; plucky little outsider . . . first ethnic-minority woman law chief . . . scourge of the old fogies. The usual kind of thing.

In the event, alas, Miss Bahl has been forced to resign the vice-presidency, hav- ing been found guilty by a panel chaired by the retired law lord, Lord Griffiths, of harassing and bullying Law Society staff members in a manner quaintly summed up by Griffiths as 'beastly'.

Over the years, I have said unkind things about the discrimination industry and, indeed, about Miss Bahl herself. Neverthe- less, during her tribulations at the Law Society, I have been virtually her only pub- lic supporter. This was partly because I thought there was something preposterous in grown men complaining that they had been 'bullied' by a woman of 5ft tins; and partly because I thought the way the com- plaints were dealt with owed much to the animosities and intrigues characteristic of the student politics of Chancery Lane. This, it now emerges, is a view shared by no less a luminary than Cherie Booth, QC, who describes Miss Bahl as the victim of a `well-organised and orchestrated anti- Kamlesh campaign'.

Miss Bahl is a rotten strategist (which is why she finds herself in her present posi- tion) but she is a consummate tactician. It was, for instance, an inspirationally shrewd move to enlist Cherie as an ally against Griffiths, and it can only be a matter of time before he finds himself arraigned in the rogues' gallery of racists and sexists.

`We did really badly in the budget so we must be middle-class.' Miss Bahl's central problem is that what- ever the background politics and skirmish- ings, Lord Griffiths's panel (which pre-emptively included a woman and a member of an ethnic minority) found unambiguously against her, and in the strongest terms. They rejected her con- tention that she had been the 'lightning- conductor-rod of change' rather than the tyrannical headmistress of St Gertrude's who had subjected staff to 'terrifying ver- bal onslaughts' and reduced them to tears. They said that she had been 'aggressive', and that she was menacing and threaten- ing.

So my first question to her was, did Miss Bahl agree, at the outset, to be bound by the Griffiths findings; findings which she now `totally rejects'?

`No. Absolutely not. A press release was prepared by the Lord Chancellor's depart- ment saying that the Griffiths Report would be binding on both parties. I delib- erately removed this and they took it out.'

This is typical Bahlism. It is hard to believe that, when Miss Bahl's opponents agreed to take part in the game, they realised that she reserved the right to repudiate the referee's rulings.

I pressed the point. Miss Bahl recalled, no doubt, that Lord Griffiths bestowed considerable praise on her CI seldom heard a more fluent or articulate witness. She is clearly a person of the highest intel- ligence and determination. She was the dynamo driving forward reforms at the Law Society. . . '). Did she accept that he was an exceptionally distinguished adjudi- cator accustomed to weighing evidence and with no possible axe to grind? And what about the two politically-correct assessors?

On the latter point, Miss Bahl's com- ment was a surprising one coming from a former chairman of the Equal Opportuni- ties Commission: 'It was window dressing.' Window dressing? Does this mean that the apparently independent assessors were, in fact, mere stooges selected as part of the anti-Bahl conspiracy?

As to Lord Griffiths's general conduct of the hearing, Miss Bahl criticises him for looking at the complaints in isolation or, as Griffiths himself put it, in a 'common- sense' way. What he should have done was to consider them in the context of the Law Society's detailed procedures for dealing with grievances. These procedures the staff did not comply with. This being the case, Lord Griffiths should properly have found that it was Miss Bahl who was the victim of the staff and not vice versa.

I asked, 'But the secretary-general [of the Law Society] says that she attempted to raise these things with you and that, when she did, it was like pressing a nuclear button. The president also said that he tried to talk to you but that you wouldn't listen.'

No, no, no,' replied Miss Bahl.

When the staff grievances first emerged back in December and it was decided to refer them to an outside panel, the Law Society agreed to pay Miss Bahl's legal costs. These costs have been incurred on a Rolls-Royce scale. Her solicitors' estimat- ed bill runs to a staggering £145,000 and her (pre-Cherie) counsel has knocked up a nice little £50,000. For money of this kind, you expect nothing but the best. Surely these white-hot briefs managed to put Miss Bahl's case as powerfully and thor- oughly as it could be put?

Yes, indeed. But, said Miss Bahl, 'The interesting thing is that Lord Griffiths seemed to prefer the evidence of all the five complainants but he has ignored 90 per cent of the submissions made by counsel.' Why on earth should he have done this if the submissions were valid and relevant?

`Because he was appointed by the Lord Chancellor.'

Here, the Kamlesh conspiracy theory reaches its final point of development. She was, as Ms Booth has kindly confirmed, the victim of a malicious and systematic campaign by the forces of conservatism at the Law Society. It was these sinister forces which enlisted staff members to

Perhaps they'll allow Section 28 when it's 16 years old.'

make their spurious complaints. For rea- sons unexplained, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, was himself a part of the con- spiracy. This is why he appointed a retired law lord who could be nudged and winked into doing what was required of him. His apparently dispassionate assessors were, as we have seen, mere 'window dressing'.

Such is the Bahlcentric version of the events of the past few months. The aston- ishing thing is that Kamlesh is persuading so many people to buy it.

And we are only warming up. Miss Bahl has made an application to an employment tribunal alleging discrimination and differ- ential treatment on the part of the Law Society and various named individuals. Discrimination? Even Eileen Pembridge, the fearsome 'chair' of the Law Society's equal opportunities committee, has declared that Miss Bahl's gender and eth- nicity, far from impeding her, have actually assisted her in her progress towards the top. Differential treatment? I would doubtless remember the case of the Law Society vice-president who, back in 1995, was exposed as a serial bottom-pincher. What about him?

MM: 'He was made to resign.'

KB: 'The point is that when the matter first arose, it was not investigated.'

MM: 'But he resigned. What more could have been done?'

KB: 'With him, the boys bent over back- wards to have quiet conversations, to say to him, "Tut, tut, if you don't improve your behaviour you know, things just might get worse for you." ' MM: 'But Matthews [ex-president] and Betts [secretary-general] say they tried that with you but without success.'

KB: 'They did not.'

Any other examples of discrimination/dif- ferential treatment? Yes. It's all there in Cherie's Opinion. The current president of the Law Society, for instance, had, on a public occasion, declared that sometimes the only way to get things done was to shout at people and he had, indeed, practised what he preached. He hadn't been made to resign, had he?

The truth is that Miss Bahl did, indeed, have implacable enemies at the Law Society (as did I during my presidency). It is quite possible that these people might stretch a point in favour of Mr X or Miss Y while refusing to do the same for Miss Bahl. This, however, has nothing to do with discrimination. It is simply that they didn't like her. I fear that this is a notion which Miss Bahl will never, never accept.

What will Miss Bahl do next? She has an arguable case that, in its dealings with her, the Law Society has been guilty of various procedural breaches and she may or may not be able to obtain damages in respect of these. Personally, I don't rate her chances very highly, and she would have to finance any litigation out of her own pocket.

Her discrimination claim is another mat- ter entirely. This would come before an employment tribunal, and there is no limit to the fatuities of which these bodies are capable. In the end, Miss Bahl may well emerge triumphantly as the gallant little Law Society president manqué, wickedly martyred by the racists and sexists of the white male establishment.

Martin Mears is former president of the Law Society.