Losing the Thread – Hemming and Mumsnet

Twitter recently alerted me to the existence of an interesting discussion thread on Mumsnet concerning adoption and care and John Hemming (Hat tip to @carlgardner, who in turn got his heads up from @thesmallplaces). I have also found another equally interesting thread concerning and involving Hemming.

As a preliminary point let me say that I can’t comment on whether or not the comments contained in these threads are true or accurate. But I can comment briefly on their potential significance if true.

In the first thread the points of most interest are contained in the account given by user Trippy, who describes having been encouraged by Hemming to adopt a stance of non-cooperation and to flee the jurisdiction. She is admirably able in hindsight to acknowledge her own failings as a mother, but appears to feel that Hemming’s advice to flee the jurisdiction and to adopt a stance of non-cooperation with social workers may have adversely affected the outcome in her case, or at any rate was not helpful. She also suggests offers of assistance with travel abroad were made. If what Trippy describes is accurate it would be both shocking and concerning behaviour from an MP. However, I am not in a position to verify or investigate these matters, and I can only flag them up for others to consider. Note, as I have been writing this post the comment in question from Trippy has been removed and marked “Message withdrawn at poster’s request”. I don’t have a screen capture, but if I did I would have to consider carefully whether or not to post it or to respect Trippy’s privacy. As it is I have decided to go ahead with the post and use it as a starting point for a discussion about the issues it raises rather than an analysis of the individual case.

Continue Reading…

Oh Hemming!

It is the most de rigeur of popular expletives. What the Hemming has he been up to now? Need I waste my tippy tappy fingertips on typing an explanation? Thought not.

So, I will just point out this excellent post of Carl Gardner’s on Head of Legal, and juxtapose it with a tweet from Fathers4Justice that landed in my twitter stream today. Some commentators today have suggested that Hemming is acting in an unprincipled fashion. I think that is right insofar as Carl points out the very important principles he is flouting (rule of law). But those of us who have been following Hemming for a little longer know there is a background to all of this recent fascination with footballers and other celebrity injunctions. Hemming is pursuing another point of principle. An equally serious problem when viewed from the other end of the telescope is that he is so focused on the broad principle that he forgets the harm he may do to the children involved in the individual cases.

I have no doubt Hemming will seek to use this whole fiasco to further his family justice campaigns. as foreshadowed by the F4J tweet.

Hemming may have valid points in individual cases about actual or potential miscarriages of justice. But how do we know he is right and is he really any more likely to be right than the judge who has seen, heard and read all the evidence? The really crucial question to ask about Hemming as self appointed arbiter of all our privacy is – What if his judgment is wrong? If the judges cannot do it, who can protect the vulnerable against the excesses of an MP who simply does not know when to shut up? A judge can be appealed. Hemming is a runaway train.

PS IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THE PRESS DESCRIBE IT AS A SUPERINJUNCTION – THE INJUNCTION IN QUESTION IS STILL NOT A SUPERINJUNCTION. You can tell this because the press were allowed to report it’s existence. This is not hard to grasp. This is an indicator of the standard of media coverage.

Is it ok to be represented by a barrister who sometimes acts for social services?

Sometimes parents are anxious that their barrister is not on their side, or even that they might be in cahoots with social services. Sometimes, when you’re being given depressing advice, it can feel as if your lawyer is not fighting hard enough for you, and sometimes it can feel as if they are spending too much time talking to the lawyers for the “other side” which makes you wonder about their loyalty. But sometimes parents feel anxious even before they get to court because they have been warned not to trust lawyers. For example, in this recent blog post ex-MP John Hemming suggests that barristers who act for parents when they have previously acted for the Local Authority who has brought a court case against them have a conflict of interest, the implication being that there is something dodgy if you are being represented by a barrister who sometimes acts for social services.

John Hemming is wrong in his interpretation of the rules. There is no professional conduct rule that prevents barristers from acting for different parties in different cases (obviously we couldn’t act for more than one party in the same case). Most family barristers are self employed, and all those self employed barristers act according to the “Cab Rank Rule” which says they must accept all briefs offered, however unattractive (there are limited exceptions which I don’t need to go into here). This is to protect the vulnerable and those with unattractive or superficially weak cases, and those whose cases are financially unappealing. The rule ensures two things : firstly that everyone who needs it has competent legal representation and secondly (this is more of a positive side effect) it ensures that a barrister representing a party has rounded experience of the sort of dispute in question, from all angles.

The important point is this : you need a lawyer who will fight hard for you. You also need a lawyer who will tell you bluntly when you are being stupid or your position is hopeless. And you need a lawyer who understands how the opposing team will be thinking, what will worry them, what they might see as their strengths and weaknesses, and where they might compromise. Having a lawyer who has acted for “the other side” is a strategic advantage.

But let’s just assume for the minute that John Hemming is right : before a barrister can act for you, they need to be sure you have given informed consent to me acting. How should you choose? What should you think about before giving your “informed consent”?

Competence and experience: Look at their chambers profile, CV, Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners profiles, Linkedin, twitter, blog… More importantly – ask your solicitor. Wherever possible they will choose someone who they have positive experience of, who has done good things for their clients before, and they will try and find someone who will suit the case and suit you. It’s okay to ask your solicitor to talk to you about the choice of barrister (although this isn’t always very practical for urgent hearings).

Rounded caseload: I would suggest it is generally a good idea to have a lawyer who does a bit of children work, a bit of parent work and a bit of local authority work. Any lawyer who does too much of one thing loses perspective a little. The job I do for parents is better because I know how Local Authorities think and act, and the same applies in reverse – I am able to give each better advice because I can make better predictions and manage the dynamics better.

Tells it like it is: Choose a lawyer who is prepared to tell you what you don’t want to hear. You can choose a lawyer who is a “Yes man” (or woman), but that is actually really risky. You NEED to know where you are going wrong, what your weak points are, where you need to change tack and have a rethink. It’s a really important part of a lawyers job – to deliver unpalatable advice and (bluntly) to call “Bullshit” when required. Once you’ve had the advice it’s up to you to give the instructions – you should not be afraid to say “thanks for the advice, but no thanks I’m going to do the opposite”, but if you’ve gone against the advice the outcome is your responsibility. But however daft your position it’s still the lawyer’s job to make the absolute best of the case you want to run.

Choose a lawyer who listens: Your lawyer will be busy at court and there might be a certain amount of running around and meetings between lawyers – and a lot of waiting around for someone to come and tell you what’s happening. This can be frustrating and anxiety provoking but it is necessary. It’s ok to ask your lawyer to keep you posted. It’s also ok to ask your lawyer not to go into court without you being present (sometimes called “counsel only” discussions. I do my best to try and keep clients posted and always try to request that parents come into court for all discussions, and I don’t mind being reminded when I slip up (it does happen). It’s your case. It’s ok to do as a client did the other day and to say “I don’t feel as if you’re on my side”. We talked about the difference between my private advice (negative) and the fight I would (and did) put up in court (feisty). And she was reassured. Your lawyer should not be dismissive of your anxieties about this.

Road test: And if you aren’t happy with your barrister after a hearing you can ask for a different one through your soliciitor. Do think before you sack them though – will you be better off with a different barrister or was the outcome of today’s hearing something they could not have prevented? A new barrister will have to start from scratch, so you’ll have to tell them everything again, and they won’t have first hand experience of the previous hearings, which can be important.

You can ask your solicitor to instruct a barrister who doesn’t act for a local authority, but you will find these are few and far between. The question you will need to ask is if no local authority wants to instruct this barrister why do I?

It’s probably better to ask your solicitor to instruct a barrister who has a good reputation for fighting for parents, but in truth your solicitor should be doing this as a matter of course. They might not always think to consult you about choice of barrister, but you can ask for input. Sometimes time constraints mean they will have to choose quickly without reference to you to ensure you have someone booked.

It’s worth remembering (as an example) that I have a good reputation for fighting for parents, but I am also regularly instructed by Local Authorities, and on behalf of children, and for extended family members. When I go to court and do my damndest for a parent client it doesn’t result in me losing work from the Local Authorities who are watching and receiving my incoming missiles. And when I act for Local Authorities the solicitors who are involved in the case for the parents, and who sometimes instruct me, know from experience that it doesn’t mean I won’t fight really hard for their next client when they instruct me. They just know I’m a lawyer who fights hard and who acts on instructions. That is what ALL clients want.

As often as I give unpalatable advice to parents about how idiotic they are being, I give unpalatable advice to local authorities too. That is the essence of the independent bar. When I’m YOUR barrister, I’m giving your case everything I’ve got. And the same goes for my professional colleagues (I’ve met a few bad apples but they are few and far between).

If you are worried about any of this talk it through with your solicitor, and if you feel it would help it is sometimes possible to arrange a conference before the hearing so you can meet your barrister face to face (this isn’t always practical given the way cases are timetabled and restrictions on funding, but you can ask).

Footnote : John Hemming says he is going to ask the Bar Standards Board to “clarify” the professional conduct rules. If he lets me know of any such clarification I’ll post it here.


Post script Mon 16 May 16 : the points about rounded caseload also apply to private law disputes. I think parents sometimes look for someone who always represents dads or always represents mums – I’m not sure this is the best way of selecting your barrister. There are some differences in private law – there is legal aid for victims of d.v. and so those represented under legal aid are predominantly but not exclusively female. This means that there is a preponderance of instructions from women / victims / primary carers, although of course in some families the stereotypes are reversed or not applicable and in others there are funds to pay for a lawyer regardless of eligibility for legal aid. In my view the assistance of a McKenzie Friend who comes from a “dads” perspective brings with it some of the same risks I identify above.

Post script no 2 Tues May 17 : See excellent sister article by Dan Bunting here : Should I worry if my barrister works for the CPS in other cases?