Who? Chris Gawne, 30-year-old associate at Alexander Harris, who specialises in clinical negligence, healthcare and human rights law.

Why is he in the news? Represented the parents of baby MB, who went to the High Court to oppose the application made by a NHS hospital trust for permission to switch off the ventilator that is keeping their 17-month-old son alive. The boy suffers from type 1 severe spinal muscular atrophy - an incurable and progressively worsening condition leading to complete paralysis. He cannot breathe for himself, chew or swallow and is fed through a tube. Baby MB is conscious and while not mentally impaired, has limited movement. He can only move his eyebrows, feet and fingers slightly. Doctors made the application on the grounds that he has a very low quality of life and that the treatment being given was causing him pain and distress. His parents contended that he can recognise and respond to them and believe he has enjoyment from spending time with his family, watching DVDs, listening to music and stories, which gives him a reasonable quality of life.


Background: Law degree and legal practice course at Nottingham Law School, followed by a training contract with his present firm. He qualified in 2001 and was made an associate in 2005.


Route to the case: He was recommended by the parents of another child in a similar situation.


Thoughts on the case: 'This is a landmark case, as it is the first time the court has been asked to withdraw ventilation from a child who has little or no cognitive impairment. In this case, withdrawal of treatment would lead to the more of less immediate death of the child. It is striking that those who spend the most amount of time with him - his parents and the junior nursing staff - believe he has a sufficient quality of life. We hope for a positive verdict that will enable baby MB's life to continue. The hearing was originally intended to be in private, but on the second day the BBC made a successful application, to which the parents didn't object, for it to be heard in public. While the identity of the parties involved remains anonymous, the evidence can be reported on so that the public can have access to the very important issues being debated.'


Dealing with the media: 'I have had to deal with the media in the past, but not quite on this scale. When involved in cases of such magnitude, it is important to facilitate information for the media to increase public awareness, but it can be very time consuming. It was made easier with the case being heard in public, as journalists heard the evidence and were better informed.'