When I first started to read this, i couldn't believe how stupid and unprofessional Mark small was being, and did want the SRA to intervene, as well as the local authorities to get involved and review his contracts, but as I watch this unfold I think it important to stop, and at least think about what he can and cannot say to defend himself.
I am a solicitor, a litigator and the mother if a child with a statement/ECHP.
As a mother I will fight for what my ds deserves and is entitled to, but would I blames baker small or similar firms for fighting back and fighting nastily, no because I cannot know what their instructions are. No firm is free to disclose those without their client/leas consent. If a solicitor is aggressive then it might be them, but it might be their client. Now this is not apparently what happened here, but the problem is legal privilege and confidentiality mean sometimes we just cannot explain why we act as we do on certain cases. We can never disclose the advice that tells our clients they will lose, or concede now or whatever it may be. That is not our place, and sometimes clients will not listen or cannot be seen to.
In the world of send I would like to believe that the lea has the children's interests at heart, but I don't. And the leas are the clients. I don't think on the whole they are better or worse than other clients, but different people see the same facts and reach vastly differing conclusions, In many individual cases the case officers may act in the interests of the child, but the system doesn't, because it is not set up that way. It is adversarial, there is no money, and no resources, no specialist placements, no additional staff and experts etc. this is frustrating, annoying, and often pernicious and evil because the children suffer, but the solution is complex.
Baker small profit from that, that may be morally wrong but I do not think that it necessarily id fat cat lawyers at the expense of families, it is hard cost benefit analysis. Yes every child has a right to an education, including those with Sen and disabilities, but people can disagree about whether aba, teach or other methods work best, whether child a needs specialist provision etc. parents do want the best for their child, and it us hard, draining and emotional to get it, but in an adversarial system some you win, some you lose.
The solicitors are not the advisers on the provision, just in how best to present the case, and often how to avoid paying more for child a so child b,c,d and e get something. Don't get me wrong it shouldn't be this way, child a, b,c,d and e are all entitled but those who shout loudest get more, which can include fight hardest threaten tribunals etc.
Now I think baker small are unprofessional, and those tweets were professional suicide, and gloating, and the cover up since is awful, and offensive, but some if what I have seen attacking Mark Small since is really not that much better. We have posters here saying he represented them and did a good job but was expensive and couldn't guarantee success. Can we not accept that that is the system not the individual. When I hear costs quoted like on thus thread I am not surprised, litigation costs money, but in no litigation practice is it right to just give in on all cases. There is always one case where actually making a stand is the right thing to do.
On the case that started thus if the parents thought they had won, and the lea thought they had won that sounds like a good result fir everyone, especially the child whose interests are supposed to be at thre centre.
Posting this was downright stupid, the subsequent comments offensive, rude and in my view do bring the profession into disrepute, but the system is disreputable to start with because there is no money to provide what children are legally entitled to. That is what we should be fighting over, not whether one solicitor said something or several things he shouldn't have not how best to string him up.
Now if I were starlight or others who had personal dealings with him I may not be so generous, but I have clients in my area if law who are equally destroyed by litigation, by the stress, by the costs and by the out and out unfairness of his things are set up, and that is the problem, and that is what encourages the mindset of some solicitors to gloat etc. they shouldn't no, they shouldn't behave in ways they sometimes do, but then again they may well be acting in a way which misguidedly is seen as in the interests of their clients. Many leas were using baker small (mine included) and many therefore saw value in what he did. Would they have stopped using baker small without the press attention, I doubt it unless they were already unhappy with the service. But many now have.
I reiterate I think the tweets were really offensive, and unprofessional, and he should have stopped and apologised, but I strongly believe that he has now paid a price and the debate should be focussed in making the system work, on collaboration, and on the political battle to get proper funding for every child to get their legal entitlement, rather than the dirty tricks used not to. The fact this has grabbed attention is good, but it is good so that the SEN community can explain how it really is whether you are arguing with a school, the NHS, the LEA, Baker small or any of the other firms doing this work. Baker small is (was I hope) symptomatic of that problem, and I hope that this whole incident moves past one person doing something really wrong onto the hundreds of us trying to get something right against the very difficult odds we are dealt.