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.

SOSSEN did a presentation at the House of Commons which they shared some preliminary research on why those LAs had more tribunals.

The LAs in question were fond of saying that it is because the have affluent parents with sharp elbows who want to raise the game.

SOSSEN said they looked at the LAs who didn't have tribunals expecting to see some better practice but found that they were equally bad but the parents had no ability to hold them to account.

It is essential to point out here too, that a tribunal win doesn't get a child any more than their legal entitlement.

'It is essential to point out here too, that a tribunal win doesn't get a child any more than their legal entitlement.'

Exactly. Which is why Mark Small's attitude (and that of many LAs although they wouldn't publicly admit it) is completely unreasonable. If the panel find in favour of the parents, they have to spell out how this is their legal entitlement in the tribunal order. Ime they don't leave any room for doubt.

If you want to appeal the tribunal's decision it can only be if they were wrong on a point of law, and not because you weren't happy with the decision.

It is essential to point out here too, that a tribunal win doesn't get a child any more than their legal entitlement

Precisely! Not a single Ferrari in sight!

And the prospect of a series of tribunals over a child's/young person's future,as those needs frequently change over time until they get to 25, is quite frankly terrifying.

I don't think I could stomach another tribunal again. Which means potentially in the future my child won't get his legal entitlement.

If you want to appeal the tribunal's decision it can only be if they were wrong on a point of law, and not because you weren't happy with the decision.

I've heard BS automatically appeal a decision, even if it's not wrong on a point of law. I remember being absolutely terrified that my LA was going to do this after my 2nd tribunal. The weeks between the judge's decision and the time limit for the LA to submit an appeal were as stressful as waiting for the tribunal. I was literally ticking off the days. Especially as I knew that BS were involved during my 1st tribunal.

As LA didn't appeal, it makes me think they'd pulled the dogs off me after the disgraceful way they'd behaved towards me after they conceded the 1st tribunal.

Am sober now!

A thought. - might it be better for parents currently battling Mr Small to allow him to continue the case and not not protest? They can then raise his pattern of conduct at the tribunal itself

never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake

The trouble with that strategy is that a parent would have to be very strong (if that's the right word) to fight him during a hearing. He's been backed into a corner over this, so will come out fighting with his gloves off. The parent is there to get their child provision - not to get BS chucked off the case. That strategy might work if you've got a barrister yourself but not on your own.

Also I suspect that there might be so much legal wrangling over that, that the hearing might end up 2 days - with all the emotion and financial cost that implies.

Perhaps the solicitors and barristers clutching their expensive pearls in horror at Mark Small's declasse' behaviour could put their pro bono money where their mouth is and attempt to help parents rid their profession of this sort of practice?

But Mark Small's involvement must drive their case numbers, their profits and ultimately their salaries.

Because we finally sold everything to get a Solicitor and Barrister, BakerSmall insisted on a Telephone Case Management of one aspect of our appeal, which the tribunal ordered.

My solicitors were all up for it. It would have cost us their time plus £3k for the Barrister, - just for a phone call.

What was it the phone call was supposed to establish?

Where we lived.

I drafted a letter for my solicitors to send to the Judge, and copy in BS, which basically stated that if the LA are unsure where I live, they could call me on the telephone number provided and ask me, without involving a whole bunch of legal bods, a Judge and use tax-payers money in this way. The Judge agreed.

I was charged for the solicitors receiving my letter, putting it on heading paper, sending it to the Judge, receiving the reply and sending it to me.

This is the kind of business BakerSmall generates for SEN legal teams.

I trained in employment law. The team was ambitious and there was much celebration when a team member defended a tribunal claim for unfair dismissal

I also had to go and do repossession hearings for foreclosing banks. I still remember the training session when the solicitor told us with a smile about how " they" ( the people in the houses) were so unrealistic...

I remember feeling embarrassed after one such hearing when the debt ridden couple thanked me " for not being too bad"

Decent people don't want to do Mr Small's type of work I suspect

I think having in house lawyers do the work would be a step in the right direction

I'm just wondering whether LAs use this firm to bully parents representing themselves, which they couldn't do if he were corresponding with another solicitor. My solicitor would do everything he could to keep costs down for me. He certainly would not allow pointless £3k telephone calls as outlined by Starlight below. I find BS absolutely shocking. It is important to hire someone who has a reputation for being straight I think. There are plenty on the parents side who also try to drive up costs (I can think of one firm in particular who won't even speak to you on the phone unless you've handed over a few hundred pounds.)

I would recommend Match Solicitors to any parent - I have found them excellent.

The really awful bit about BS, though, is the training in malpractice (formal and informal) given to so many LA staff over so many years.

Yes, one lawyer might be barred, struck off, bankrupted, whatever. But the rot has already spread. The culture of 'fight with whatever you've got', 'parents are just pushy', 'shouldn't social services be investigating these awkward people?' and 'they're probably exaggerating the child's issues' or 'it's to get more benefits/cos of their own issues' is well entrenched.

When we dealt with our LA's in house lawyer, she was straight. In terms of the legal bits, it felt like a fair a fight as she could give, given we were unrepresented.

But the witnesses (and one witness in particular) were not. Like starlight, I'm usually reluctant to share the full details. Saying respected professionals conspired with the council to harm you sounds paranoid and deranged. But it did happen- and seems to be the norm for parents going to Tribunal

I think that those of us who've dealt with the system know that nobody is deranged. I've heard so many stories about first hand experience of outrageous behaviour from so called professionals. I think the rot has been widespread for a very long time.

The LA's EP before our first tribunal behaved dreadfully towards our family and I wrote a letter of complaint about her to the director of education, stating that she had not fulfilled her duty to behave ethically and transparently. I said I wanted her to be removed from my daughters case. The LA refused and made her attend the tribunal but she seemed afraid to contribute anything so it can help to call out shit behaviour because professionals don't want to be hauled over the coals in a tribunal.

Lottie I'm out & proud with other SEN parents. It's only the general public who think I've lost it

Well I'd say the advice you've given me - and most of it very recently - would prove yiu to be of sound mind meir

The LA and DS school may wish to prove otherwise but as people beyond the world of SEN are beginning to learn that's a ploy to avoid their accountability being upheld - not a reflection of the truth!

Even though I'm involved in the system and tribunal process the actions of some LA's and of BS towards families and disabled children is leaving me I seriously thought mine were bad but it seems elsewhere there are LAs that will literally empty their pockets of public funds to avoid following their statutory duty.

I'm having real problem working out how/who to write to regarding the entire BS fiasco. Particularly the financial side of £1.7m money meant for children going straight into the hands of BS.

Dept of Ed? LGO? Nicky Morgan? Ed Timpson?

So depressing the scale of this.

Perhaps the solicitors and barristers clutching their expensive pearls in horror at Mark Small's declasse' behaviour could put their pro bono money where their mouth is and attempt to help parents rid their profession of this sort of practice?

There are a couple of City law firms doing this, working with established charities to provide pro bono support to individual SENDIST appeals.

Bit of a mixed bag, tbh. What legal blogger Jack of Kent calls the "Hugo from Mergers" problem. Normally means you get a cheap young, thrusting, but inexperienced M&A specialist who hasn't had a lot of time to mug up on SEN law. The best are worth it, but less than that ain't.

Check this from NAS / Clifford Chance:

An 85% success rate. Which must sound amazingly good to CC.

To people who know the average parental strike rate for success at SENDIST, it's a bit meh.

Ed Timpson gives a shit.

Not necessarily has much power to do anything but he'll probably listen.

Starlight, I'm not sure you had the right solicitors. A barrister charging £3000 for a telephone hearing is just ludicrous - there are barristers out there charging that or less for a full day hearing and preparation for it. There are some like Simpson Millar that offer fixed fees - all that extra work for the stupid BS application wouldn't have cost a penny extra.

No we didn't. But we did have a very well known one. I wouldn't recommend them.

Though the firm may well have recognised how desperate we were by then and possibly thought we had money to burn as many who use them do.

It is not easy Starlight x

( by the way,. I'm lingle, just felt I should let you know)