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.

Tbf on the LAs (which I hate admitting to!) I think some of their reluctance must be because of contractual agreements with BS. If they immediately cut ties, then they might be in breech of their contract and risk themselves to being sued by Baker Small. I am hoping that if this is the case, there could be something in the contract which would mean that they can terminate - such as professional misconduct or the financial viability of BS. They are probably seeking specialist legal advice themselves on this.

Maybe other lawyers could comment on this contractual side of things?

Yes, they may need to wait until the SRA decides if there is any breach of professional rules and then check if there is a breach that the breach is bad enough to justify terminating the contract and it will depend what the contract says too. Some contracts might give early termination rights without any cause.

It can be very expensive (and it is our money, we tax payers who are the ultimate people paying hand over fist for all this on all sides let us remember) to change solicitors. You need a new firm to read into all the files, you are double paying for a while, you will probably be paying higher rates because the new firm will know you have felt left high and dry because of the publice outcry meaning you feel you have no choice but to terminate a contract with Small.

I agree with the comments above that he will not be allowed to give his side of things for legal and professional reasons so don't of course believe everything you read. I am sure none of us do without checking and evidence.

On this post above "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. "

I thought it was normal and lawful in most employment and other litigation to write liek that. It is not illegal to make a full data protection subject access request surely? It is that kind of comment which is so unfair on this man whose life has been destroyed by the witch hunt. When a subject access request is received the recipient then has to take out data which is about other people which they are not allowed by klaw to disclose. This is utterly standard and there is no unlawfulness in the original request. To suggest there is might be libellous although it tends tob e sensible if in doubt to say now't and not to sue for these things and let it die down. I am always telling clients least said soonest mended. If he had not tweeted in the first place he wouldn't have this mess.

I am so pleased that he tweeted. It's been very hard for parents who have lost their homes, their money, marriages due to his underhand tactics (and others).

No one believed them. I liken it to the victims of Jimmy Savile etc who were not believed and people claimed that they were on a witch hunt (favoured and lazy term towards anyone who tries to expose a deviant).

I am sure that their will be lots of in house work done in the future and this will lead to more mediation and less aggression in the future.

After all, it's not about Mark Small and his wealth/career, it's about the child isn't it user?

unfair on this man whose life has been destroyed by the witch hunt

Really?

So it's ok to destroy the lives of disabled children and their parents but not to call to account a man and his firm who has acted so unprofessionally, unethically and immorally.

I find it interesting that user keeps posting loooong posts trying to defend the indefensible.

I think she is deliberately goading, she just enjoys it unfortunately. Given how many of us know who she is though and own our own companies, I am
surprised that she doesn't worry that it will affect her work.

Ohhhhh, I see

Take heart from the other lawyers posting on here who do not support him. I thought the blog link to the other SEN solicitor was very cheering too. There are some who do care and want to put the chikd first as well as earn money.

No. I and a few others on the thread are just trying to be fair and explain some facts. I have huge sympathy for those with children who have special needs. I keep seeing things which are wrong or misrepresent him. Anyway we can all make up our own minds.

Why would it affect my work to write accurate statements about the law to correct inaccuracies? Like most people I think he was very silly to make those tweets. No one is defending what he said nor the email he had first threatening his family.

Everyone should treat others kindly and with respect at all times.

Oh do stop waffling. Honestly, most professionals wouldn't dream of tweeting something like that even if they thought it privately. Nothing has been misrepresented. He has tried to wriggle out of what he did, initially trying to blame someone else. His behaviour shows the height of arrogance. Pride always comes before a fall.

user you don't explain 'facts', you don't know what you are talking about. You work in a completely different area and hadn't even bothered to read all the tweets before commenting.

You don't post correct information, as an example you tried to claim that tax at 45% would be paid out of shareholder funds etc. when Mark Small's wealth was discussed.

You claim that you are posting because you care about the 'under dog', this is not true. I have been here 13 years, I have seen you in all your name changes and you do not jump in on threads because you care about fairness in arguments.

You are here simply because for some reason you feel compelled to stick up for someone, purely because they happen to be in the same profession as you.

My brother is a magic circle lawyer, if he can see what's wrong with Mark Small (and the other lawyers on this thread), I fail to see why you can't.

As I say, I think you enjoy goading.

MS's life has not been destroyed. His behaviours have been stopped/slowed. Those behaviours had no place in SEN law and his conduct was illegitimate. Sill, he made enough money to retire.

Not the same thing as parents who lost their homes, their savings, their marriage and some of them their children, to attempt to resource the legal battles, the child-protection defences, and the provision themselves that their children were being denied. These are the people's whose lives have been destroyed.

The other SEN solicitor wrote and very balanced and fair commentary. I am absolutely sure if he had been involved in my case then things would not have broken down between myself and my LA to the extent that they did.

Here's the link again.

What SEN Lawyers can learn from the Baker Small Twitter Scandal

And here's a link to another thoughtful blog - this firm represent both LAs and parents (but mainly the latter).

Media Reports into law firm Baker Small reinforces the need for change in approach to Special Needs Law

Quite, Starlight. I think there are enough professionals in the world of SEN law, dining in style off the backs of families under enormous pressure. This man is something else though.

This is a new blog too

claireyr123.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/thank-you-mr-small/

I think that LEAs shouldn't be allowed to hire legal representation unless the parent has.

And for the record, I worked for over 30 years in the non-legal Business Support departments for the majority of the "big boy" legal firms in the City - inc Magic Circle firms. My contacts there - including many lawyers - are horrified by this scandal.

I say "worked" because the stress brought on by fighting 2 tribunals and one LGO ended my career

And as a strategy to cope with the unbelievable stress of those tribunals, a six month LGO complaint, and home schooling my son for a year, I turned to writing about history. I now have several books published. I am in the process of writing a book about the 1500s witch hunts of my own county. I can assure you, this is absolutely NOTHING like a 1500s witch-hunt.

Time to step away from the keyboard.

to everyone hurt and affected.

It must gall you to hear the odd poster defend him anew.

Although your books sound quite interesting?

Thanks for posting that blog ANewName - really heartening to hear what I would expect from a professional involved in tribunals.

And the only reason Mark Small has apologised is because he knows he has had a Gerald Ratner moment. Through his own arrogance and stupidity, he has bitten the hand that feeds him.

And if that means his business and livelihood is destroyed, well I give zero fucks, frankly. I reserve my sympathy for those who are deserving of it.

I am not his defender. I just wanti t to be fair.
"You don't post correct information, as an example you tried to claim that tax at 45% would be paid out of shareholder funds etc. when Mark Small's wealth was discussed. " That's not true. His limited company will pay tax at 20% on its profits. When he draws the money out he will pay tax - under the April 2016 dividend tax law changes he will probably pay not much less in tax than his top rate now which si why people are scurrying around all over England dissolving companies or were before April.

I have never said his tweets were sensible or wise.

One LA said that the SENDIST tribunal system was unfair because 85% of parents win their cases.

They regularly whinge that if SENDIST was a fair system then only 50% of parents would win their cases and 50% of LAs would win too.

Can you see why this idea of fairness is completely bonkers user?

Jeremy It's fascinating stuff. For a real 1500s witch-hunt, a spectacularly awful one is from the 1580s. One of the key "witnesses" during this particular hunt was a baby under the age of one who denounced a neighbour by pointing at her. This witch-hunt created 13% of all criminal trials for that county for that decade.

Maybe when my book is written, I should start a "AIBU to resent the BS scandal being compared to a 1500s witch-hunt"

Back to the thread.

Either last year or the year before, the LGO issued a statement stating that the majority of the complaints they handle come from parents complaining about their LA's behaviour during a SENDIST. (I can't find the article to link to)

Not many of these complaints are upheld because LAs just about to manage to operate within the law. Bullying tactics used on parents are not out of the law. In my case, I was "lucky" as my LA disregarded some key elements of the Education Act and I was able to prove this absolutely - although it took me 6 months and countless shenanigans and lies from the LA before the LGO issued their findings.

Talking of the LGO - I think the BS scandal may cause more and more parents to decide to complain to them if their LA has used his services. This is from the Local Government Lawyer website - 8 October 2015

The Local Government Ombudsman has warned councils that although they can contract out services, they remain responsible for the quality of any service those contractors provide, and for addressing any complaints users of services may have. “This accountability remains irrespective of whether the provider is a private company, a third sector organisation or another publicly-funded body,” the LGO said