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.

What's the ethics/law on a solicitor setting up a new law firm whilst being investigated by the SRA? How will the SRA view this?

doesn't look like a law firm. He will probably say it is an SEN consultancy.

Jeez he has some balls.
He's simply and not even subtly just set up a different firm and carried on.

He must be allowed to - I don't think he'd do it otherwise.

Not that I think he should be able to carry on whilst the families he's ripped apart and left shredded across counties search for bits and peace themselves back together.

IMO he's just spotted where the money is - in Sen because the system fails on so many levels - and gone in for the cash. I doubt he's passionate about send support - just about getting his pockets lined and a win.

The Shadow Children's Minister, Sharon Hodgson, has tweeted "Letters to Minister & SRA gone today, letters to all LAs going out tomorrow. Details on my website tomorrow"

Her website is www.sharonhodgson.org/

I knew that he would do this

Wow. If you look at Mark Small's active appointments he now has five, including BS and the new one. One is called Essential Mediation, one is Legal4Schools, and one is SEN4You (parents). It looks like he's had a finger in every pie.

I see the Baker Small website is still suffering bandwidth failure.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a solicitor setting up a new company whilst under investigation - it would only be an issue if he had been struck off. Presumably his current firm still exists, but he probably recognises that he can't carry on with it if he wants to represent parents because when any potential new client googles they'll learn the murky truth.

I'm not sure having a new company name will make any difference TBH.

I think now everyone knows it's MS not his companies who are the issue they will think twice about employing him iyswim?

I wouldn't put it past him to get someone else to front up the new business so that it's not so obvious that it's him.

His name is on it on the link above as the sole person in the firm

I can't think why any parent would waste their hard earned money on instructing him!

His name is on the company details as he has set it up. However, he might well decide to put an employee or associate in as the public front of the organisation so that people don't google his name and get put off using it.

He needs to move on to another field. Preferably one where he's fighting for the better good.

Indeed. He can't still work in SEN after this. It may not be against the rules, but it shows an astounding lack of judgement and integrity.

Currier Bell - don't we all know that already?

As a parent, there's absolutely no way I'd employ him. Apart from all the other reasons (inc his highly questionable morals and ethics), I absolutely sure if a LA who was a former client of Baker Small got wind that the parent was being represented by MS's new company, the gates of hell would be unleashed on the parent in revenge for MS's actions. The LA would appoint top lawyers/barristers in revenge for his actions.

I wouldn't touch him with the proverbial barge-pole.

He wouldn't be allowed to act against a former client LA for some time - I'm guessing at least a year. I don't know whether he could set up a business where ostensibly he's not the front man to try to get round that.

Someone on Twitter has said that he is not allowed to do this while under active investigation by SRA as he is misrepresenting himself. I will try and find the link given.

I think MS's own ego wouldn't let anyone else other than himself be the front-man

BS back in The Guardian again. And mumsnet gets a mention too

www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jun/22/simply-inhumane-the-law-firm-that-fights-parents-seeking-help-for-childrens-special-needs

Wow - that is an amazingly thorough article. And mentions MS's new company at the end! Has anyone sent it to the SRA? It mentions previous complaints which were not acted upon.

Amelia has been great, I think we have all been talking to her on Twitter. She has really been digging.

Good article. Factual. Unemotional. Thorough. Really good.

Sharon Hodgson has written to Timpson - www.sharonhodgson.org/sharon_writes_to_education_minister_solicitors_regulation_association_and_local_authorities_about_actions_of_law_firm_baker_small

Re the latest Guardian article: is anyone else wondering what the agenda was in being so aggressive about getting the medical notes of the child with leukaemia combined with the delaying tactics? It smells a bit of making an argument that it wasn't worth bothering about providing for the child's education if she had a limited life expectancy.