Who? Helen Barry, 44-year-old partner in the Liverpool office of north-west claimant firm Edwards Abrams Doherty.

Why is she in the news? Represented Peter and Margaret Doran, the parents of 31-year-old Eileen Doran who suffered from mitochondria cytopathy - an incurable brain disease - and who the High Court ruled should not be given invasive treatment to prolong her life. Doctors at the Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery NHS Trust said the disease, which had killed Ms Doran's brother two years ago, had left her in a persistent vegetative state for the last four months without any chance of recovery. They took the case to court when her family objected to their decision not to resuscitate her if she stopped breathing. Ms Doran died in hospital last week.


Background: Law degree at the University of Manchester followed by the legal practice course at Chester's College of Law and a training contract with Anthony Landers in Manchester (now Alexander Harris). She qualified in 1986, and remained there for a year. She then joined Liverpool firm Yossi Jackson & Ostrin, where she became a partner, moving to Edwards Abrams Doherty in 1997.


Route to the case: 'Our firm is well known for its clinical negligence work and although this was not a clinical negligence case, it came as a referral from lawyers in London.'


Thoughts on the case: 'In this case there was a conflict of fact between the NHS trust and Mr and Mrs Doran regarding their daughter's responsiveness, and they were grateful to have had their say. Mr Justice Coleridge followed the best interests principles laid down in the case of baby Charlotte Wyatt. He accepted the medical evidence and found Ms Doran was brain dead, and resuscitation should be withheld if she stopped breathing. The Legal Services Commission withdrew legal aid at the last moment, on the basis that the medical evidence was against the family, despite the fundamental importance of this case to the family, the fact that Mr and Mrs Doran were illiterate, and the NHS trust which brought the case was represented by solicitors and counsel. We agreed to represent the family pro bono as we felt it would have been untenable to leave them unrepresented in such a case.' The commission told the Gazette that two unfavourable expert opinions, and a counsel's opinion giving the case very low prospects of success, meant it 'had no option but to make the difficult decision that no further legal aid should be granted'.


Dealing with the media: 'Due to the nature of the work I do, the media is often interested in it. The difference in this case was that I had to try to protect the family's interest. The case was reported in a balanced and sensitive way - my yardstick was how the family felt and they were happy with the coverage.'