Skip to main content

Family Court Solicitors and Conflicts of Interest

I was surprised to find that it is commonplace that solicitors act both for the local authority and for parents with cases against the same authority.

I have confirmed that this happens with solicitors. I have also checked it out with the law society who say it is acceptable.

Personally I don't think it is acceptable. When solicitors acting for parents on relatively badly paid legal aid also need to keep the local authority happy so that they can keep funds coming in from the local authority then there is a clear conflict of interest.

I am tabling an Early Day Motion about this. What I am suggesting as a minimum is that parents are told that this is the case and agree in writing to accept the situation. To be honest, however, I think it should be stopped.

The argument is made that not enough firms would then do legally aided work. That in itself raises very serious questions about Article 6 - the Right to a fair trial.

I have heard anecdotal hearsay about confidential papers being passed by the parents' solicitors to the local authority. This was not in Birmingham I must emphasise. My conflicts research has been based in Birmingham as I know how things work in Birmingham more than elsewhere.

I personally would not use a firm of solicitors that also worked for the local authority. One of the reasons why there is so much going on with people as litigants in person is that they don't trust their solicitors.

In Sheffield, for example, parents are actually kept out of the courtroom. There are some very good firms of solicitors around. However, Conflicts of Interest are an important issue.

Comments

Ellee Seymour said…
I definitely agree that there would appear to be a conflict of interest here, good luck with the EDM.

I'm researching a project on MPs blogging and two-way communication and wondered if you would mind answering an electronic questionaire, it won't be too long and your feedback would be most appreciated.
john said…
I emailed you in response to your letter.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…