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 think this thread is evidence of the impact of his tweets, so possibly yes.

I wonder if he will 'phoenix' the company with a new name? He certainly intends to carry on the field as it stands.

Jeremy This is why it's absolutely vital that the SRA are involved (which I know, behind the scenes they must be by now)

Here's another example of his legal tricks which I'd totally forgotten about until today. This one caused me extreme stress. This is how my LA stayed within the law.

This is the background. My LA had refused to assess. This is despite my DC full-filling the criteria that he needed to be assessed. I won't going into the boring stuff - but he had "passed with flying colours" the legal test that is applied when determining Statutory Assessment. On medical advice, I had withdrawn my son from school and I was home eding with no input at all from the LA. (Home eding while going through 2 Tribunals was horrendous!)

I had booked expensive witnesses and we were all ready to go to hearing - all knowing that my DC had passed this legal "test".

On the day of the evidence deadline, the LA didn't put any evidence at all - because they had none. Instead they asked the Tribunal for an adjournment based on two premises a) they hadn't had time to read all the evidence (this is despite them having it for nearly a month as I sent it all in before the deadline) and b) they wanted the hearing adjourned and a new venue found because their solicitor was pregnant and "it was not in her best interest to travel into central London with a heavy casefile".

My solicitor went for strikeout and the LA immediately conceded. The LA then unleashed their entire fury at me. I won't go into what manner that took because it was just horrendous and just leaves me shaking. My witnesses were so horrified by this fury that noone charged me for the cancellation. They would have been quite entitled to do so.

So, the LA had totally stayed within the law, and used the pregnancy of a LA solicitor to attempt an adjournment (with all the financial and emotional cost that entails) because it wasn't "in her best interests". Where was my child's best interests in all of this?

I cannot say if this was on the direct advice from Mark Small but my LA was certainly using his services at that point - although they no longer do.

Still can't share all, but may I share something else that sounds far-fetched that might now be believed as there is some evidence on MN for it?:

As the LA learned that my Father was terminally ill with a max of 2 weeks to live, there was an allegation that I was claiming DLA fraudulently and instead of spending time with my Father, I was routing through details of our finances plus mortgage payments, bank statements etc. because the DWP had summoned me to an interview and told me I had to submit these things (Despite DLA not being means tested).

The 'evidence' that was produced (though I was apparently not entitled to see it) was my posts on MN where I was giving help to people who were struggling to fill in their forms. Mostly this help was in the form of sign-posting to organisations such as CEREBA and other charities, but sometimes it was on a specific question that poster didn't understand (and I would give the advice that official organisations gave).

The allegation was that I was playing the system for myself, and teaching others how to.

During my Father's final days, I was being investigated and interviewed and asked questions that were (not BakerSmall's fault) quite bonkers such as 'so, apparently your son CAN walk after all?', when I never ever claimed that he couldn't.

I was told my online behaviours would be monitored, and that I could still be prosecuted within the next 2 years if the DWP aren't satisfied with the outcome of the interview.

There is evidence on MN, of a lot of deleted tweets under a version of this MN name, as MNHQ agreed to remove much of my posting history for protection.

How do I know that this was BakerSmall? Well I don't. But I do know that the Headteacher of the school my son was starting Reception in, had a copy of the MN transcript.

This is because before my son started there, a Parent Governor with strong religious faith, asked to meet me for coffee. They shared that they had been tasked with 'befriending me' and encouraging me to seek another school. They shared that I had been portrayed as a greedy parent trying to get a Ferrari (not sure if they were exact words). They also knew about the transcript and mentioned MN.

As you can see, it is almost impossible to share this kind of story for a)it isn't very believable and b)the Governor could have got into an awful lot of trouble.

I hope now that the BakerSmall tweet and following debacle, as well as the passing of time, means that neither are the case now.

I can't write much now but starlight I completely believe that this happened and I hope that those who have defended BS and LAs and other lawyers like him take the time to read your post.

I am so sorry that you were put through all that, utterly disgraceful.

For those who still think this is a poor hounded man. You see, it's all well and good for a lawyer to "win" a legal case. I totally get that. As you will have seen up post I've worked with corporate City lawyers for 30 years. The real "big boys" of the City law firms. I know exactly what happens after the "win" of a case - you have a big piss up in the local wine bar.

But if that "win" is at the cost of disabled child, what you don't do is go for 26 hours "red mist" Twitter storm when you know your very audience are the likes of me and star

Please report the actions of this man to the SRA if you haven't already done so.

anew the real 'big boys' don't behave like this I agree. In fact, there is usually a handshake afterwards. Far classier.

Not the barristers though obvs.

For those of you who are interested
rollonfriday.com/TheNews/EuropeNews/tabid/58/Id/4626/fromTab/36/currentIndex/0/Default.aspx

I suspect the purpose of the DLA allegation, was to be able to submit evidence that the severity of my son's disability was at least in question, as having removed all of the non-provision that the previous tribunal had ordered (because the LA said they would deliver it but didn't), we had appealed again on the basis of my son having made no progress.

The reasons for lack of progress that the LA gave were a)his inability to make progress due to his ASD diagnosis, and b)his maternal grandfather's death causing chaotic homelife.

It was at this point that we sold our house to get a fuck off barrister, pay schools fees in a non-LA school and moved LAs, which as you know from before, got BakerSmall a contract with the LA we moved to.

My husband is an academic, I no longer work (had to leave my job due to the stress and sheer about of paperwork and fighting). Money is not a resource that we have ever had much of. But our savings, and my pension are gone forever. My 3 children will be sharing a bedroom for the rest of their time living at home.

start it just is absolutely despicable. He leaves behind broken lives.

Worcestershire LA have apparently confirmed that they intend to continue using Baker Small.

I've dealt with the DPA as a data controller, but not involving children, so my knowledge doesn't cover this.

How does a nursery end up the recipient of a "hostile" DPA subject access request from a local authority-employed solicitor? All the DPA SARs I've dealt with have been over the signature of the subject, and if I didn't have that, I would have rejected it out of hand. What's the legal avenue that a solicitor working for an LA is able to use to demand data from a nursery about a child?

Thanks lifestooshort - love the final para

That poor cat. He should get an agent - he's worth about £1m per year!

Nothing on the last few posts above though does relate to this man. the fact a local authority applied for an adjourment is not connected to this man so why is that long example used as a reason people shoudl complain to the SRA about this man? It is as if there is no one easily to blame so let us make it all black and white and there is one devil ont his planet in all this and it's this man. In fact it sounds more like the system is flawed or the local authorities are difficult rather than just heaping all the blame on to one individual.

If the allegation is that this man trawled mumsnet to find posts and worked uot who was who and then sent the mumsnet list of posts to the child's new school surely that could be proved by first asking the school who sent them the posts?

That Buckinghamshire/Baker Small document has annoyed me all over again. If BS are responsible, even partly, for local authorities' obsession with writing provision to fit outcomes rather than to meet the child's needs, then that's yet another crime to be laid at their door.

'What's the legal avenue that a solicitor working for an LA is able to use to demand data from a nursery about a child?'

The argument used was first of all presence of authority i.e. 'I'm a legal person and what I am saying is that you must do this, and if you don't I might use the law against you', and secondly what was used on my son's nursery was 'If you don't give it to us, we'll make the tribunal issue an order!'.

They didn't know what a tribunal was, or an order, or have any reason that a person representing the law would be flouting it. They aren't legal people, they are childcare people.

user I'm sorry my long "example" seemed to annoy you. And I'm sorry that you've missed the point in my case that the adjournment was to cause maximum stress and cancellation fees to me. As I said, BS was advising my LA throughout my case.

You may have pots of money, I don't.

Do you really have absolutely no empathy?

Hallo again, user. Before you post anything else, would you care to answer those question put to you upthread, for instance as to why you think the tweets weren't too bad? Is it fine with you for parents of disabled children to be dismissed as "emotive"? Or for a solicitor to post a picture of a swimming pool with the very clear implication that he's living a life of luxury financed by the money he's making acting for people trying to stop their children getting support?

The fact a local authority applied for an adjourment is not connected to this man

Do you have any evidence for that, user? Starlight has pointed out that the LA in question was using MS as its adviser at the time. Of course it's not proof, but equally it really doesn't entitle you to pronounce that it had nothing to do with him. To those who know BS, the adjournment is a standard BS tactic, and frankly the use of stupid reasons is also standard.

In fact it sounds more like the system is flawed or the local authorities are difficult rather than just heaping all the blame on to one individual.

Have you by any chance RTFT? Many, many people have made the point that BS are not on their own and that the system is awful. MS happens however to have taken it further than any other LA lawyer.

Grim. I thought it was illegal, or at least SRA-able, for solicitors to make legal threats that were based on untruths?

I suppose in theory an Anton Pillar (or do I mean Norwich Pharmacal?) order could be used, but it all seems a trifle unlikely. Solicitors threatening nurseries with made-up law: how horrible. What are the discovery powers that tribunals have? They aren't courts, are they, so presumably rather limited?

I was wondering if it was one of the horrible things that insurance companies sometimes do of making the applicant do their own DPA SRA, so the insurance company can see the results, and refusing cover if you don't. But clearly not...

Neckguard, there is provision in the DPA for opponents in litigation to ask for data. It does, however, have to be strictly limited to the subject matter of the litigation, which really means that the person requesting it has to give very detailed descriptions and that the subject of the request should be given the opportunity to object to any particular document being handed over. In BS' case, however, they made a practice of simply asking for the entire file and telling the nursery or school that the DPA allowed it. As Starlight says, the average busy nursery or school tends to assume that lawyers who are instructed by their local authority and are experts in that field must know what they're talking about and don't tend to go off and double-check. The use of threats about tribunal orders is another standard BS tactic.

Sorry, I see my post about the adjournment should have referred to NewDay, not Starlight.

Strong words from IPSEA. They've released a statement - at the end of the link is their letter of complaint to the SRA.

Statement regarding Baker Small and IPSEA

user Please read ISPEA's letter linked at the end of their statement. I'm glad their lawyers have understood the gravity of those tweets.

An SRA model letter: www.ipsea.org.uk/file-manager/news2016/sra-letter.pdf

there is provision in the DPA for opponents in litigation to ask for data.

I didn't know that. I'm aware of S.35(2), but it's worded the same as S.29(3) is for criminal matters. I'm old enough to pre-date RIPA, and in the late 1990s I was peripherally involved in a police investigation where I held (in my guise as IT Director) some potentially relevant communications records. The letter I got from the police quoted what was then S.27(3) in the 1984 Act, now S.29(3) in the 1998 Act, and was essentially a letter of comfort: if you as a public-spirited citizen choose to hand this data over, this letter releases you from any obligation under the DPA to keep the data private, and means that the subject cannot later bring an action under the DPA to say you shouldn't have given it to the Police.

I read S.35 to say that if there is some other legal requirement for data to be handed over, or the nursery (in this case) chooses to hand it over, then the DPA isn't engaged. So you can't use the DPA to oppose some other court order. However, it doesn't provide a right to demand or compel the data, any more than S.27(3) does, does it? The solicitor can ask, the nursery can say no, that's the end of it.

So the solicitor was threatening the nursery with false legal provisions, which I thought was at least grounds for a complaint to the SRA.