Report comment

Some of these responses leave me astonished, and thoroughly understanding of the vitriol the profession currently sees itself victim of.

Anon @5:02, Perhaps I am missing a serious satirical undertone, but the insanity of suggesting that the best way to represent your professions interests is to grimly cling to your requisite fees in the face of such a horrific predicament befalling two loving parents and a child that may soon grow up without them... It begs belief.

Perhaps your practised cynicism, as helpful as it may be in doing your job, is exactly the reason the public are so apathetic about the predicament the profession faces. You have the perfect opportunity here to highlight exactly the unthinkable plight that the legal reforms are landing good people in, and thus the potential to change the conversation from 'Aww the poor solicitors aren't getting paid so much. It must be tragic to only be able to afford 4 holidays a year instead of 5.' to 'The reforms being pursued are actively ruining lives, denying access to justice, breaching human rights, and saving precious little money or time comparative to their cost.'

Marshall Hall, I'll preface individual responses with a question - have you read and understood the 'diatribe'?

1: It's rather clear there would BE no diatribe at all if Withy King had withdrawn from the case. I am under the impression this is largely what the solicitors acting for the mother have had to do, and therein lies why the case was heard by Munby. Are you seriously suggesting that a man with an IQ of 50 (unable to represent himself in court, but moreso, unable to understand the proceedings brought against him much less form a cogent argument for or against them) would have been capable of somehow accessing the right people to see this case heard himself? There would be no case, the child would be up for adoption, and all because of a very clear error in the means-testing criteria.

2: My feeling on this would be the same as why any Barrister is instructed in matters where a solicitor COULD act alone; time and expertise. I cast no aspersion on the abilities of Ms Stevens, but I would suggest that her expertise are in her work as a solicitor, and thus her time is most efficiently spent on that. Whilst I'm sure she is more than CAPABLE of acting alone, why not offload that aspect that a Barrister is most skilled and efficient in to a Barrister, so she can devote time to her paying cases, which she is surely in need of? You can call it over-manning, but it's rather obvious to anyone with business acumen that this is a perfectly reasonable approach (hence why it is adopted so widely in litigation).

3: If I was a fee-paying Withy King client, I would be incredibly proud of my solicitors for having such a keen sense of social responsibility. I would also be very aware that if NO pro-bono work were being carried out, this would most likely never have any effect on how much I am being billed. So really it comes down to, why would I pay a solicitor (who likely charges exactly the same as anyone else I could engage with) with no sense of corporate social responsibility, rather than one who does?

4: Enjoy your principles; they're serving the profession so well at the moment, right? As to Anon 5:02, it's about changing the conversation; if lawyers STOP trying to look like they value their pay above the lives and rights of others, and start trying to look like they DESERVE pay because they are out to help regular people, not bankrupt them, the profession stands a chance.



As a final thought, this article would do much more justice to the situation if it encouraged a reading of Munby's piece, or even one of the many blogs that has been written condensing it. This article barely touches on the key facts of the case, allowing a lot of people to form opinions that make no sense (for example, the people in the comments here stating that there ought only be a solicitor for the family and a solicitor for the local authority - completely missing the legal requirement that the father have separate representation to the mother, that another solicitor act in separation from both the parents and the local authority on behalf of the child etc) - a hope that this is also what has allowed some of my peers to form such perverse and seemingly repugnant views on the matter.