During the 1986 council elections, when the Conservative national administration was going through one of its periodic bouts of unpopularity, the Labour party came within 108 votes of wresting control of the flagship authority Westminster from local Tories.According to Andrew Dismore, it was in the heady political atmosphere which followed the drama of those elections that the Conservatives conceived their so-called 'homes-for-votes' policies.These were condemned in last month's provisional report from district auditor John Magill (see [1994] Gazette, 19 January, 10).Only last week it became clear that Mr Magill was intent on widening the scope of his enquiries.'It became apparent that things were being done which should not be done,' says Mr Dismore, now leader of the Labour group in Westminster city hall, and a partner with trade union lawyers Robin Thompson & Partners.

'Basically, the policy, which was officially called "building stable communities" but was never formally adopted by the council, implicated virtually every department and council policy,' he claims.'There is a whole series of policies which we are looking at now which, on the face of it, seemed a bit peculiar.

We now know these were done for political motives.

In due course the details will come out, and some of it is pretty horrendous.'If Mr Dismore is right, the 'horror show' is due to start this autumn when the district auditor will begin to hold public hearings at which Dame Shirley Porter and eight others named in the report can defend themselves against the allegations levelled against them.Mr Dismore, 39, joined the council to represent the Westbourne ward straddling north-west London's Harrow Road in 1982.

This was a less auspicious electoral year for Labour - the time of the Falklands War - when he was one of 11 new Labour councillors out of a total of 16.His grandfather, mother and father had been councillors before him in and around his native Bridlington, North Yorkshire.

He studied at Warwick University and the London School of Economics.

He then worked for what is now the GMB union, before starting his articles at Thompsons in 1978 - where he has worked ever since.

'I now get quite a good range of high value cases, which means there are a lot of opportunities for trying out new ideas and pushing back the frontiers,' he says.

One example is the establishment of the loss of congenial employment as a head of damages, recognised in the 1988 case Blamey v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, in which Mr Dismore was involved.In it, a fireman who suffered back and knee injuries during the course of his work was awarded £11,500 in general damages and £3250 in separate compensation in recognition of the fact that he had lost a career he enjoyed and could now be trapped in mundane work, or on the dole for the rest of his life.The principle is now well established and has covered hospital theatre orderlies, police officers, stunt men, nurses, dancers, aircraft engineers and other trades.

Suggested levels of damages are listed in the Kemp & Kemp guide.Mr Dismore's diverse work with the fire brigade's union has included cases of post-traumatic stress in the wake of the King's Cross underground blaze.Recently, he has been leading the charge towards specialisation as an assessor to the Law Society's personal injury panel.

He also led attacks on government plans to reform criminal injuries compensation - he prepared much of the briefing materi al for last week's Lords debate on the issue.