Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Is this appropriate conduct for solicitors?

814 replies

AugustaFinkNottle · 11/06/2016 22:33

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 Confused 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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
26
JudyCoolibar · 17/06/2016 16:34

User, it's child's play to change your name via the website, and the system' working.

Why on earth are you talking about Freedom of Information requests? The data issue here is solicitors who do not act for a child asking the child's school for personal information about him or her. How on earth is that a FoI request?

There is no pre-action disclosure in SEN tribunal cases.

Are you sure you're a solicitor? As Neckguard says, this is just basic stuff.

NeckguardUnbespoke · 17/06/2016 17:01

User appears to have some comprehension problems.

Here is the very simple question.

You phone up an organisation and ask for some information about John Smith, citing the Data Protection Act.

Your name is not John Smith.

The organisation tells you, politely, to stop wasting their time as they have some important coffee to drink.

What do you think you have in your armoury to convince them otherwise?

My assertion is "nothing, unless you can get a court to agree". What do you think?

StarlightMcKenzee · 17/06/2016 17:13

For those facing BakerSmall or at risk of it in the future, SOSSEN have published this advice:

www.facebook.com/SOSSpecialEducationalNeeds/posts/806979176105068

We have been asked to advise parents with ongoing appeals where their LAs are still being represented by Baker Small since they are unhappy about facing a representative of an organisation which is capable of producing the tweets they sent last weekend.

As parents, you do not have the right to dictate which solicitors your LA chooses, but you can obviously make representations about this not least as your Council Tax is being used for the purpose. We would therefore suggest that parents and carers affected write directly to the relevant caseworker at the LA, copying in the Head of SEN, stating their views about the prospect of any information or documents about their child going to Baker Small or anyone employed or subcontracted by them, asking that they should have no involvement in their children's cases, and asking them to confirm that (where relevant) they will retrieve all documents from them and arrange for any document sent electronically to them to be permanently deleted

Anyone in the LA areas concerned who is lodging a new appeal should include a request that the LA are not represented by Baker Small in light of their behaviour and the major stress it would cause you to know that your child's confidential information is being handled by a firm which has displayed the attitudes in question and which is prepared to use social media to poke fun at parents such as you.

For those already involved in appeals, the important issue is fairness, and your ability to present your case or give evidence properly and without unnecessary stress If you believe that that will not be possible if your opponents are from this firm, we would suggest lodging a Request for Changes asking that the LA be directed to make alternative arrangements (e.g. having their case presented by their own officers, or instructing a barrister) because their involvement will prejudice your right to a fair hearing. You should give details of how this is affecting you. Refer to the fact that Baker Small has shown itself to have a highly inappropriate attitude to the families of disabled children, particularly those appealing to the tribunal, and that no-one can be satisfied that they will not feel it appropriate to publish similar comments on social media about your case. The fact that they may not name anyone, as was the case last weekend, makes no difference to parents who know that it is their case the firm is writing about. It is reasonable to point out that they did not apparently have full regard to their LA clients' confidentiality rights when they tweeted and therefore you are not satisfied they would preserve your children's confidentiality. If it is the case that the prospect of dealing with members of Baker Small, or of their having continued access to information about your children is causing you so much stress that it affects your ability to prepare and present your case, or to give evidence, then say so. It will then be a matter for the Tribunal Judge's discretion.
We also suggest that parents and carers should additionally make urgent representations to their local councillors, the Leader of the Council, their MP and the SEN department at the Department for Education. Also contact other senior officials within the council such as the heads of SEN and the Education Department, and the Chief Executive.

ANewDayANewName · 17/06/2016 17:16

ISPEA's complaint to the SRA has made the Law Society Gazette

Charity Publishes Complaint to SRA against Baker Small

user1464519881 · 17/06/2016 17:16

Yes, you can only ask about your own data under the DPA. YOu can only ask public bodies about general information using FOIA. So any third category of request would either be during existing litigation (disclosure stage) or if before an action is started for pre action disclosure.

Just had another go at changing user name by the way and the existing dull name user is still just showing in a grey type unable to be changed which is strange but not a huge problem. I am sure we can cope with the dull name.

StarlightMcKenzee · 17/06/2016 17:25

The comments on the gazette article are a bit depressing.

ANewDayANewName · 17/06/2016 17:35

Maybe someone who has got an account with Law Gazette could make a comment that as ISPEA represents many parents at Tribunals, it is highly likely that IPSEA themselves immediately identified the child Baker Small tweeted about.

Jeremysfavouriteaunt · 17/06/2016 17:39

Unfortunately the comments are similar to those on Twitter from a lot of lawyers (and on here).

I really think that they should have the guts to use their real name though.

youarenotkiddingme · 17/06/2016 17:46

I am amazed and in awe of everyone here who has jumped up and made sure councils, La's and charities involved in Sen are fully informed and taking steps to prevent further detrimental practice in cases of children with disability accessing education.

AugustaFinkNottle · 17/06/2016 18:31

Yes, you can only ask about your own data under the DPA. YOu can only ask public bodies about general information using FOIA. So any third category of request would either be during existing litigation (disclosure stage) or if before an action is started for pre action disclosure.

The penny has dropped at last. Please therefore explain why you said upthread, in response to an account of BS writing to schools to demand copies of all documents held about a child in school files:

"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."

OP posts:
AugustaFinkNottle · 17/06/2016 18:53

User since you ask about questions you haven't answered, here are just some, copied and pasted. Now that they're all conveniently set out together, I'm sure you'll have no difficulty answering.

  1. Has anyone suggested threats are acceptable? What do you think the appropriate reaction to that is? Is it (a) to tell the police; or (b) to go on twitter and start sneering at parents of disabled children?
  1. Please can you point out any comment which is libellous?
  1. Following a listing of all Small's comments:
user from a fellow lawyer, please tell me again that these aren't too bad? We are not taking about the "gloating" tweets, we are talking about his entire conduct which started Friday night and continued on into late Saturday night. I haven't even got to his conduct on Sunday (blaming "someone else" and then Monday''s insincere apologies) before the story "broke". Please tell me that you believe he is upholding the SRA Code of Conduct?
  1. user1464519881: His tweets are not too bad in my view

what the hell is wrong with you?

  1. 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?
  1. 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 issue, 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?

OP posts:
CurrerBell · 17/06/2016 18:58

Have finally sent the letter to the SRA, mostly based on IPSEA's points, but I also managed to get in some of what has been discussed here re MS's history of disrespect towards parents, e.g. the Ferrari comment. I also mentioned his claim about the "moment of red mist" and the 26 hour timeline.

MS has occupied way too much of my headspace already and I can't imagine what it's been like for those of you who have encountered him directly.

I'm trying not to think about the comments on the Law Gazette page as they are too depressing. Sad

LyndaNotLinda · 17/06/2016 19:34

On another thread, it has just become clear that userwhatever is a PBP so has been rebanned.

So the GF was entirely deliberate :(

StarlightMcKenzee · 17/06/2016 19:37

What is a PBP?

fastdaytears · 17/06/2016 19:40

Previously banned poster.

Is it definitely the same person? There are tons of users.... at the moment, really annoyingly as it's impossible to follow who's saying what.

ANewDayANewName · 17/06/2016 19:48

It was the same poster. Stupid sequence of numbers same on both threads. MNHQ have confirmed that she's been escorted off the premises.

fastdaytears · 17/06/2016 19:48

Well I dare say we'll bear the loss

Jeremysfavouriteaunt · 17/06/2016 19:51

Are you sure? There was another user plus numbers who is a different person causing trouble. MN haven't got back to me yet.

LyndaNotLinda · 17/06/2016 19:54

Yes, definitely user1464519881

She was also posting on a thread about a DS who's schooling is hanging in the balance because the LA are deliberating over his 1-2-1 but the school say he can't stay unless he gets it.

She compared it to children failing the 11+ [mad]

Jeremysfavouriteaunt · 17/06/2016 19:54

Well well well, maybe I should do my own reporting to the SRA Grin

AugustaFinkNottle · 17/06/2016 19:55

Oh well, she was never going to answer those questions I repeated for her anyway.

OP posts:
Jeremysfavouriteaunt · 17/06/2016 19:58

The shameful thing is that she really is a lawyer, I obviously won't 'out' her on this thread but I know exactly who she is.

ANewDayANewName · 17/06/2016 20:03

Tbh, on this particular thread I couldn't give a damn. It's shown up that not only do parents of disabled children have to cope with the likes of Mark Small but we also have to cope with the likes of a disablist goadyfuckers such as user whatever-her-number who, shamefully, is also a lawyer, and doesn't actually seem to understand the law.

She's probably also one of those who have commented on the Law Gazette.