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.

I agree that the tribunal system is not meant to be adversarial, and whilst it's not meant to be nice and fluffy, it is meant to be a much less aggressive forum than a court and everyone is supposed to be focussing on the child's needs, not point-scoring over the other side or winning at all costs. I also have heard a number of professionals and charities in the SEN field saying that a case involving BS is always much more aggressively run than others. In particular, they advise that your chances of fighting the case through to a full hearing rather than settling earlier are much worse if BS is on the other side.

Just one example. At one stage BS would, on receiving an appeal, write to the school to request copies of all documents on the child's file and alleged that this was legitimate under the Data Protection Act. That would have meant them receiving totally irrelevant documents, e.g. personal information about illnesses suffered by the parents or siblings If the school had complied, they would have been liable for massive fines from the Information Commissioner, because it was clearly not permitted under the DPA. Yet when parents objected and said they would get the records and file anything that was relevant, BS told the tribunal they were being obstructive.

where, do you seriously believe that a council told BS to misrepresent the law on the Data Protection Act? And, if they did, do you believe BS had a duty to follow those instructions properly? Why?

You suggest the cuts cause appalling behaviour. None of that means that solicitors are compelled to behave appallingly.

SoThatHappened forget it, you are another solicitor trying to justify it. I must always AS before getting drawn in to this.

This is an excellent blog post from a specialist educational lawyer who states from the outset that he is mainly instructed by LAs

What stands out to me is that, unlike Baker Small, he always remembers that there is a child at the centre of this - even when he represents the LA.

What Sen lawyers can learn from the Baker Small Twitter scandal

SoThatHappened: RTFT, in fact try to read the OP properly, and maybe try not to post just for the sake of being argumentative. How does the fact that I was blocked from the twitter feed automatically mean that the original post must have been appropriate? I've been known to block people from my twitter feed because they were responding in a manner that demonstrated they were bigoted idiots - that clearly doesn't meant that my tweets must be inappropriate. In this case, the people who were blocked were those who disagreed, or indeed who tried to warn Small against getting himself even deeper into trouble.

Have you actually been keeping up with the news? This has gone viral and has hit virtually all the national newspapers. How precisely do you allege this has brought more attention to the tweets than they have received already?

Thanks for the reply re Kent Augusta, I hope they use people more like the author of the blog ANewDay just linked to and less like Mark Small.

Sorry, but as much as I dislike the Torys, the way LAs behave has been going on long, long before they got in. Back in 2004 I was hearing stories of LAs fabricating 'evidence', turning up at tribunals with faked IEPs that the parent had never seen.

LAs DO have the money to fund provision. I was told this by my Parent Partnership. They just want greater control of their resources.

How can we get this story to BBC? The more exposure of our corrupt system the better, IMHO.

I strongly believe that he has now paid a price

I disagree. He's still lying and deflecting. If he had been upfront and taken the blame personally then maybe I'd agree with you. I'd still want there to be SRA consequences which I think there will be. As it is though, he hasn't done that at all.

Yes of course this is about more than one person. But that doesn't mean we forget about that one person.

The BBC have been running it locally.

A possible fine of £2000 is derisory considering the amount that is paid to solicitors acting for LAs.

Croydon have said they're suspending any work they have with BS and "reviewing the matter following highly inappropriate tweets".

The real cost to Mark Small will be the loss of his professional reputation and his LA contracts. His LA contracts are worth at least £1m pa. He also provides adhoc advice to LAs - I haven't seen any figures quoted for that amount but suspect this adhoc advice is also worth hundreds of thousands per year.

This is why we are actively on Twitter lobbying the LAs who have either decided to continue or have yet to declare their intentions about their use of Baker Small.

This is not a social media frenzy. Many LAs are actively responding to our tweets. Twitter is a very very public place - as Mark Small found to his cost. It is an excellent place to reach right to the top of LAs as they don't want this type of bad press. My own LA responded to my tweets within hours with an official statement. If I had emailed or written to them, I suspect I would never have heard back from them.

Please keep tweeting the LAs who have either gone quiet or are continuing with his services.

I heard there was a recent case when a solicitor was fined £15K for sending a distressing email to one person. I would hope that the fine for sending several distressing tweets to hundreds of people would be somewhat larger.

How is a fine of £2k a deterrent?

May I make a personal plea for tweets to Kingston who have 'just' signed a contract following the new funding agreement with school.

I have never had any beef with them, - son is in cheapest but most successful placement in his whole educational career so far (8 placements) due to good collaborative working.

I don't want that to change, and it is important to retain some good practice on the SEN scene before we lose sight of it altogether.

Tweeted Kingston and their MP last night. Will start again soon when their offices are open.

It's not about the fine, it's about having had one. It will affect his reputation with schools, his indemnity insurance and possibly him being allowed to be the sole partner in his firm.

Kingston and Richmond operate education services together, don't they? Does anyone know if Richmond use Baker Small or have made any announcement about this?

This is why it is so important that as many people as possible complain to the SRA

I work with many lawyers who act in totally different practice areas (mainly corporate) and they are horrified at Mark Small's lack of professionalism and his bringing their profession into disrepute.

What's the best local paper for Kingston?

Worcestershire have gone very quiet. I will be contacting the local paper.

Suffolk have confirmed that they don't use Baker Small

Kingston have tweeted

"All - thank you for your concern & passion re #BakerSmall. We are reviewing our contract w/ them and will update you as soon as we can"

I find it incredible that any Local Authority would think it's reasonable to carry on using this firm with public funds. How can anyone think it's appropriate for this man to have access to the files of vulnerable children?

He acted like the whole thing is one massive joke to him. I wonder if he's ever considered how he would feel if his child needed SEN provision.

Kingston Guardian might be the appropriate local paper?