You really have to wonder about the need for all those lawyers on listed company boards these days.

You also have to question the huge fees paid to law firms to advise directors on all their legal requirements.

Our one listed legal firm, Slater and Gordon, is either painfully ignorant of their reporting requirements or simply an appalling example of corporate governance.

Yesterday the shares plunged a further 17% after they failed to meet their own self-imposed deadline on updating investors about its deteriorating financial situation.

This from the company that has seen most of its value wiped off in less than a year because of failure to keep the market informed of its position.

This is basic business practice, made even more outrageous by the fact that this is a LAW firm. You would think they might have some idea about reading regulations much less complying with them.

Now no-one has yet has suggested they have broken any laws; well no-one in a position to act tough or seriously address these matters like the ASX or ASIC, but every day this company continues to trading questions should be asked. 

We could start with are the shareholders fully informed. Or perhaps does the board itself have any idea?

Sure Slater is not a specialist corporate firm, but at the bottom feeding end, but even ambulance chasers have law degrees. 

A GP can't argue they aren't coronary specialists if a patient is having a heart attack in front of them surely? You would need basic professional skills you would think.

I have always thought that the preponderance of lawyers in our boardrooms did nothing to improve overall corporate performance.

It was more a fig leaf for the timidity of directors who wanted to whine about the "onerous" legal requirements (read personal liability) in performing their directors duties. Not that it stopped them lobbying for the prime board seats whether they were qualified or not.