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.

SEN tribunal hearings aren't open, user.

The issue is not that he only sent the one tweet you refer to, although that one is bad enough for all the reasons quoted upthread. He sent several more where he continued to laugh about it - there's the one with the cat picture in it, amongst others. He also instantly blocked anyone who said anything remotely critical, even a lawyer who tried to warn him against the consequences of his own folly.

And how about the confidentiality issue? Do you think his LA clients seriously want him telling the world their view of the outcome of the case? To say nothing of the major damage this will have done with their relationship with the family concerned - they do still have to deal with them and have all sorts of responsibilities towards them.

The issue to be grappled with is the wider issue of whether this series of tweets was one man's drunken mistake or the drunken unmasking of a prevailing culture and attitude.

Most working in the 'industry' on both sides would agree the latter.

Absolutely Starlight

I was talking to the lawyer that was blocked, he was utterly stunned by it all.

Sendist cases are indeed closed. Their is security restrictions in sendist venues. So if your not pre booked no one is allowed in for security reasons. The rooms are small so there is a overall cap on people who can fit in a room. Also unless the parent or LA invite and pre book you your not allowed in.
It's not like court at all. It's not a criminal case

'Lottielou7 Are you suggesting that an LA should not be allowed to instruct solicitors in this or any other sort of litigation?'

No. But the situation should be matched with the parents. What I am saying is that if the parents are unrepresented then the LA should not instruct a solicitor and if they do then that is hostile and aggressive.

Lottielou7 Then you are suggesting that LAs should not be allowed to instruct a solicitor if the parents don't.

Why only LA's? Why not government departments or private litigants?

It's not on.

I love how their apology is all in the passive voice - "a number of tweets were posted", "the tweets were sent" - not "we posted tweets", "we sent tweets". The language is designed to distance it from them as if it wasn't REALLY them, it was just this spontaneous and unfortunate natural occurrence.

My DH met a number of people in the US serving life sentences for violent crimes and said their language was similar - "why are you serving a life sentence?" "There was a convenience store robbery happening, and this guy got shot", not "I was robbing a convenience store and shot a guy".

He is trying to garner sympathy now by claiming that he blocked people for aiming their fury 'at his family'.

What an odious creature, I have been following this all weekend and have not seen a single tweet aimed at his family. People have been dignified and have mostly been the ones to have been ripped apart by him.

He.just.is.not.getting.it.

I've had tribunals against our LA. We had very good legal representation on one occasion and on the other they decided to use their in house solicitor but I represented myself (and still won anyway) because it was a smaller issue. There was a comment made about how the LA looked aggressive in hiring a solicitor when I hadn't.

What is 'not on' is parents being bullied by the state.

Odious is exactly the word for him.

Starlight, I have the distinct impression that this was very much a case of in vino veritas. By all accounts the contempt for parents and their children displayed in the tweets are consistent with the way they normally work.

I don't think blocking anyone from your twitter feed could be any kind of professional misconduct. However if these hearings are secret are you allowed to say you fought off a claim and won?

he has not given details of the case as far as I can see but even saying the local authority won might not be allowed to be disclosed. I just don't nkow the rules. In divorce cases which I also don't do, where there may be some confidential hearings (and indeed all the commercial confidential settlements which is the way most legal cases end, not in court) are strictly confidential. Sometimes both sides agree a press release to be issued but that is by agreement and the details can be attached to the draft press release both sides agree.

He's trying to deflect criticism now by saying they've donated to a children's charity. However, strangely it's one that has nothing to do with education. Might be more appropriate if it was SOS SEN or IPSEA that he was donating to.

Of course blocking from a twitter feed is not professional misconduct in itself. However, if you post comments that are bound to cause distress or which are unprofessional, and then block anyone who points that out, it's an aggravating factor.

User nothing wrong in tweeting that they successfully defended a case requesting ABA (or for that matter physiotherapy, or a wheelchair lift, etc) be paid for, for a child whose parents said it was what their child needed.

That's reasonable advertising of their practise to attract custom.

Everything wrong in public goady personal behaviour towards the parents.

It's bad enough that the parents have to put up with that sort of behaviour during the case preparation and in tribunal, but at least then it's generally done as a tactic to beat down the 'opposition'. (parent trying to get disabled child's needs met)

Doing it publicly afterwards just for the LOLZ is just belly crawlingly low.

user are you deliberately misunderstanding?

No one has ever stated that Mark Small blocking people from his Twitter feed would constitute professional misconduct.

It's not the reporting of the win that's grim. It's the gloating and the laughing at the poor stupid parents who didn't even understand that they'd lost that's grim.

And yes, the family are likely to know exactly who they are. Imagine the way it feels to lose your child's tribunal to access an education that will meet their needs. You would be devastated. The costs involved, the tremendous amount of work, stress and sheer willpower that it takes to take an LA to tribunal. Bad enough to lose but then to find out that your LA's solicitors are publicly humiliating you and taking the piss out of your stupidity all over Twitter. I can't even begin to imagine how that family's feeling.

I was blocked and not only did I not converse with him, I wasn't even following him.

He has given details of the case. The 'type' of case is rare and those involved in well networked. The date was given and the LA was given.

Where did he do that, Starlight?

Solicitors in SENDIST cases report their 'win's' all the time, as BS have done. This wasn't about reporting a win, but rubbing the parents face in it publicly.

I imagine the 'those nasty parents were picking on my family' line is a continuation of the PR stuff sold to LAs, and aimed at LAs.

'Parents of SEN kids are wicked, selfish, emotive, unstable people who don't understand that poor LA employees are the victims in all of this!'

I agree blocking is not professional misconduct. Some people were suggesting it was wrong to block or aggravating conduct and I am not sure it is.
If the whole hearing is confidential is he even allowed to say who won was my point - a bit like a super injunction issue - you can hardly even say the injunction is in place kind of thing.

It sounds like had he confined himself to saying "another win for the firm" he would be okay but using cat pictures, colloquial language and mentioning the parents on the other side did not go down very well.

If he has given details of a case where he is not allowed to do that even if anonymised that looks pretty bad to me.