Is this appropriate conduct for solicitors?

[AugustaFinkNottle]

A solicitors' firm which acts for councils in special educational needs tribunals has tweeted the following:

"Great ABA Trib win this week ... interesting to see how parents continue to persist with it. Funny thing is parents think they won ;)"

I can't link to it due to having been blocked but it's been retweeted, e.g here.

The original tweet resulted in numerous complaints and a quick change to the tweet.

The case they're triumphalising about will have involved a disabled child. Lovely.

As more and more LAs are falling, many are still saying that on current cases BS will still act for them (I suppose legally that's what has to happen under the terms of their agreements/contracts with each other.)

If any lurkers on this thread are in the process of SENDIST tribunals, please take SOS!SEN's advice on this fiasico.

If anyone is currently involved in an appeal involving BS, you may like to think about lodging a print-out of the tweets concerned with your evidence. They have been removed from BS’s twitter feed, but have been reposted in a number of areas. You could also contact your LA direct to let them know that you object strongly to a firm which shows such a cavalier disregard of duties of confidentiality having access to sensitive information about your child. And you could also send a formal complaint to the tribunal expressing your feelings on having to deal with a firm that apparently considers your case something which they will ultimately have a public laugh about on a warm Saturday evening SOS!SEN Press Release 13 June 2016

My MP has replied to me very promptly, saying that he will take this up with the council.

He's repeated that nonsense about "a moment of red mist" being the cause. Because of course, when you're tweeting in a moment of red mist you carry on doing so for over 24 hours, you look for pictures of cats, and you put up tweets saying "Nice to be relaxing on twitter at the end of a busy week" next to pictures of swimming pools.

I don't feel sorry for him at all. Not even a tiny bit.

Does no one feel he has been villified a totally unreasonable extent

No. And I don't have an SEN child or a personal axe to grind other than really preferring other solicitors to behave while in (electronic) public.

Nothing witch hunt about it. He's apologised yes but also lied, deflected blame and come up with a totally impaulsible story about red mist.

I trust the SRA to sort it out though. This isn't trial by MN

A member of the public tweeting something, however tasteless is not the same as a solicitor who is representing government departments. Whenever a MP makes some dreadful comment, swift resignation follows. Because in their position they just cannot afford to behave this way.

I know,. I just wanted to voice mym own sympathy as I don't like one sided threads. He told a friend JKR's pseudonym and the friend tweeted it. Never tell friends anything like that.

Here is an example - solicitor fined £1000 for breaching confidentiality
www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-lawyer-fined-over-robert-galbraith-cuckoos-calling-identity-leak-9034972.html

"The solicitor who revealed JK Rowling as the author behind the pseudonym Robert Galbraith has been fined £1,000 for breaching privacy rules.

Christopher Gossage, a partner at Russells Solicitors in London, has also been issued with a written rebuke from the Solicitor’s Regulation Authority (SRA).

Gossage was fined for breach of client confidentiality after he told his wife’s best friend that Robert Galbraith was the pen name used by Rowling to write The Cuckoo’s Calling.

Rowling’s pseudonym was publicly revealed by The Sunday Times in July last year after Gossage’s friend Judith Callegari revealed the information during a Twitter exchange with journalist India Knight.

The author took legal action against Gossage and Callegari last July for breach of confidence and was awarded damages in the form of a “substantial” charity donation.

Rowling said at the time she would donate the damages pay-out to the Soldier’s Charity, formerly known as the Army Benevolent Fund.

The author said she had assumed “total confidentiality” from Russells Solicitors and revealed she had only told a “tiny number” of people about her pen name. "

I have no idea what JK Rowling has to do with this

Literally nothing unless user wants to demonstrate the concept of confidentiality which I believe EVEN the non-lawyers on this thread can get their little heads around

I did always wonder what happened to that guy though actually so I'm grateful for the link

He wants to go to the police because someone called him a cunt?

of course he does because the police have nothing better to do than comfort rich lawyers with a "there, there, horrible nasty SEN parents"

user1464519881 His tweets are not too bad in my view

what the hell is wrong with you?

User, you seem to be incapable of understanding or imagining the distress this man has caused to the families of disabled children - not just this week, but for years. Do you feel in the least sorry for what was endured by Starlight, and by the parents referred to in the Herts press release referred to above? Or are you too busy feeling sorrier and sorrier for Mark Small?

yes he probably was a rude and he's apologised

"Probably"? You seem to be saying he might not have been rude. Could you explain that?

On the confidentiality, he didn't just say he'd won, did he? Why are you sliding over that fact? If you read this thread, it's pretty generally accepted that there is no issue with a solicitor announcing that he's won the case.

The apology: yes, he's apologised. But for two days he was fully prepared to imply (by writing about implementing the disciplinary process) that one of his employees was to blame. Do you find that acceptable?

His latest apology states that this was "a moment of red mist" resulting from a distressing email. There have been a number of posts above pointing out the massive holes in that account of the facts. Do you find an apology resting on such shaky ground acceptable? If so, would you care to explain why?

As a pp touched on, this opens the wider issue of the LAs themselves - of course they know full well how aggressive and underhand BS are, which is why of course they employed them.

I hope one issue which can be highlighted more, as also mentioned in the guardian piece, is the adversarial attitudes from LAs (and often, schools) themselves in the first place (as so many of us know all too well). From the very outset, there is never an attitude of "we're going to help you". It is always "we're going to make you fight" - just to get adequate support for your disabled child They are never on the families' side, never. It just doesn't start with on an equal playing field.

From the very beginning, the pressure is on the family to prove and prove and prove again the very real difficulties their child/ren face, and only those with the funds, energy, and know-how can ever hope to even know where to begin with getting the support due to the child. And then facing the huge, expensive tribunal, where you're faced with a small army of LA and their lawyers.

This nasty sidesweep about "emotive" parents is disgusting - trying to imply that parents are irrational or unreasonable.

The entire system is reprehensible and I hope that by exposing the doings of BS to the public, the whole rotten system is highlighted.

I think Usual is attempting deflection with the JK Rowling story - a usual lawyer's technique.

Look, no one forced this man to work in this area of the law, so it is pointless to try and cast him as the victim. He chose to make his money ripping vulnerable families to shreds. He is now being held to account for some stupid, insensitive tweets. Yes, big boo hoo for him.

Good for Mumsnet posters for raising the profile of this and getting it the media. I don't have a SN child, but my SIL does and I know she has had to fight tooth and nail for every bit of support he is entitled to. SN mothers have to be like lionesses, this man is a jackass.

Yes that's what I thought. It won't work. Go and deflect elsewhere ms

I absolutely cannot see the relevance between JKR (as much as I love and admire her) and Baker Small.

The reason why it is a one-sided mumsnet thread is because everyone is so horrified this. It's not just about mumsnet. This entire scandal is reaching the ears of the government. We are talking about over £1m pa of the public purse going to fund this firm.

Mark Small has been critical of the CFA and ECHP policy and said that LAs are are breaking point and has criticised the Tribunal (ergo, I am an unethical BSer)

You may wonder whether LAs are missing statutory deadlines for transfer - impacting on ability for Appeal before the start of the next academic year - and wonder about steps the Tribunal Service might be making in response to this, such as hearing appeals over the summer break and/or reducing the time before hearing is listed from 20 weeks...

What has been the response of Tribunal Service?

His statements about LAs not being fit for purpose really gets me. Instead of fighting parents, why hasn't he concentrated his efforts and talents on bringing the LAs up to standard and making them fit for purpose? Instead he conducts "training" courses for LAs aimed specifically at strategies on how the LAs could "win" (but still they don't as the LAs' "success" rate is so poor). Instead of charging extortionate sums of money each year for his services, why isn't he training them to be fit for purpose so they can bring that service back inhouse?

On the second and probably more material issue of confidentiality (something most of us are pretty hot on)

I do hope you're not trying to suggest you know more about confidentiality duties than all the lawyers on this thread, user?

The tribunal always has a reduced timetable for change of phase appeals over the summer, KeepOn, and it's operating again this year. They've also said they are willing to sit during the summer holidays.

I cannot think of any other area of law where there would be this level of almost hatred and terribly strong feelings

You are correct User. That is because we are talking about our children. Who are disabled in one way or another. Who we, as their parents, have given a commitment from the moment that they are born to love and protect them. If we their parents won't stand up for them, then who will? It is our duty as their parents to secure them an education that they can access. We are not even talking about a Ferrari provision. We talking about an educational provision which they can access.

It is our duty as their parents to do this. That is why there is this level of "almost hatred". We are protecting and "fighting" for those that we love and honour the most in this world.

What ANewDay says is obviously right and the strength of feeling is huge and probably not matched anywhere else, but that does not mean that other lawyers in other areas don't get abusive or threatening emails from people personally involved in cases. It's an occupational hazard and the way to deal with it is not by posting pictures of laughing cats or being so rude.

I know,. I just wanted to voice my own sympathy as I don't like one sided threads

You know what, user, sometimes a thread is one sided for very good reason. And they do happen on MN. Do you feel condemned to jump in on the other side when, for instance, there's a thread where everyone condemns racism?

Such a lame argument to use the tired phrase 'witch hunt'. Its a lazy argument and one born out of not knowing what else to say.

User I think you enjoy being deliberately provocative and pretending to ignore the evidence of his behaviour over a long period of time. Anyone seen the car and football tweets yet from the BS account? He likes an Audi R8 apparently. The man is pure class.

Own up to supporting him on Twitter user, use your real name and show your allegiance to him there, as you state , it's quite one sided there isn't it?

Have faith in your opinions, after all, saying that you are glad that you don't work in this area is essentially saying what a nightmare these parents are who kick up a fuss aren't they?

I know nothing about, say, family law, but I would have thought that if you practice in that area you get a pretty similar level of hatred and strong feelings - often for similar reasons. People tend to feel rather strongly about partners who abuse them or their children, or who are doing their utmost to avoid paying for their children's maintenance or to turn their children against them. However, I can't remember ever seeing reports about solicitors working in that area of the law acting in a manner even approaching Ms's activities.