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.

They worked out who she is on the other thread too 'previously prolific poster beginning with X'.
Hates stay at home Mums, five children, island, blah blah.

I thought that too about her commenting on the law gazette, spiteful and nasty person.

What's up with MN at the moment?

I know who she is too. She's always been massively blatant about it. I didn't realise this was her though. She was always a bit insensitive but never mean and has never made sly digs at families dealing with SEN AFAIK

I think she has got worse since namechanging frequently, always easy to spot though. Lots of people knew who she was in real life with her previous name and she started name changing more.

Oh dear...the penny has dropped.

I know someone quite high profile who has been on the parents team at a few tribunals with BS. They said that BS didn't win any of them and referred to MS as 'a nasty little man'.

I think that it's despicable of LAs to hire him just to bully parents. Because, let's face it he doesn't have a very good success rate and is ranked on tier 4 on the legal 500.

Oh goodness, now even I know who she is and I'm never in the 'in' crowd and have real trouble with inference often.

Oh god I think I know who she is now and not even from this board. Is she also rather prolific (though not banned yes AFAIK) on RollOnFriday? The number of children and start-an-argument-alone-in-a-phonebox-qualities are quite identifying.

In the meantime...

Some awesome awesome people have been busy behind the scenes compiling some "interesting" data on the activities of BS and the LAs.

This is a massive scandal.

From 100 LAs approached, 34 have recently used BS services. 31 since 2015.

Of those 34, only 15 have given some form statement (ranging from "immediate termination of contract" to "we will continue to work with him" to "we have no plans at current"). 19 LAs have not responded.

Very identifying.

ANewDay you're right let's not get sidetracked. Those 19 can't hold out much longer. There must be comments coming soon?

Even I know who you mean now! And never even new what the souring story was or actually who it is in RL. Just recognise who it was on MN!

Here's some good Friday night reading

Is your own LA in this list?

LA & Baker Small contracts

I just registered with the Law Society Gazette to post but then decided not to because I've had two drinks

Just one of the many differences between me and Mr Small who I hope will be struck off.

there are many litigators who do not simply accept the adversarial environment, they drive it. MS appear to be one of them.

whydidhesaythat If you intend to link on social media to any pictures of that cat , I hear he's now charging a fee of £1million.

mr Small is charging£1m?

whydidhesaythat No - the cat is. Step away from the keyboard!

:) ahhh

there are many litigators who do not simply accept the adversarial environment, they drive it.

You want to be a respected QC, with chambers near the Inns of Court, whose urbane anecdotes amuse your colleagues over drinks at the Travellers'.

You'd settle for being a respected specialist barrister, sought out by discerning clients, whose occasional seminars at the LSE attract a respectful audience of post-grads.

You are a solicitor in a small office in Milton Keynes converting the haranguing of desperate parents into a stream of semi-literate tweets before you go bust.

Neckguard

Makes a provincial solicitor sound unavhievably aspirational...

Letters in the Guardian today regarding BS:

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jun/17/legal-gloating-shows-failure-of-sen-system

I really like the last point about making LAs accountable for the number of tribunals brought.

I think the LAs need to be accountable for the number of tribunals which are now going to be directly affected by parents requesting that Baker Small should not be used - as per the SOS!SEN advice.

The person who compiled the LA-Baker Small spreadsheet tweeted

"The combined remittances / live contractual commitments to Baker Small for these 31 LAs - from April 2015 to last wk - stood at £1.7 million"

That £1.7m could have helped so many disabled children!

This is a nationwide scandal.

Anyone got any ideas on what/how to complain to Dept of Education?

Currer Bell - ITA. I was looking at the Tribunals stats last night, to try to work out why Norfolk have a contract for £600,000 with Baker Small. Iirc, they only had 38 tribunals in the last figures. A chief legal officer of a large LA might earn £105,000 - £120,000 pa. So Norfolk could have employed 6 full time chief legal officers for what they paid Baker Small - and to do 38 tribunals? It beggars belief! What else was he doing for them? Surely, it would have been cheaper to do it in house, as a more efficient use of resources, that phrase so beloved by LAs?

It's no wonder Mark Small was according to other posters, poorly organised at tribunals - with contracts of work worth £1.7 million, how could he have had time to prepare properly? (And we have seen him in action at tribunal ourselves). Anyway, if LAs had good evidence to support their case with all their resources and expertise, including that of all their maintained schools, why did they need external legal representation?

As for all this talk of cuts, it was interesting, looking at the tribunal stats to see the top five LAs for number of tribunals are still Herts, Surrey, Kent, Hampshire and Essex - as they were 17 years ago, per an Ipsea tribunal rep then!

Sorry 5, not 6 full time chief legal officers - not a morning person!