A London firm has filed a claim for judicial review in the High Court challenging the Law Society over its refusal to allow an employee to be reaccredited on a mental health accreditation scheme.
Since August 2014, publicly funded representatives in first-tier tribunal (mental health) proceedings have needed to be members of Chancery Lane's mental health accreditation scheme.
GT Stewart, in a post on its website, said: 'The Law Society accepts that Rebecca Hill completed professional development hours in the preceding three years to her application for reaccreditation. However, it does not accept that all of the training undertaken was "mental health law related" and took the decision to refuse her application.
'The Law Society has not published detailed guidance on what areas are accepted to be mental health law-"related". However, in its published "expected standards of competence", applicants are expected to have sufficient knowledge of areas of law, such as mental capacity, community care and human rights, which are relevant to advising and representing clients in proceedings before the first-tier tribunal. Rebecca maintains that the courses which she undertook came squarely within the competencies required and that the Law Society’s decision to refuse her application for reaccreditation to the mental health accreditation Scheme is unlawful.'
Responding, a Law Society spokesperson said: 'We have received a pre-action protocol letter and are aware a claim is being issued. We will not be commenting further at this time.'