Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

United Kingdom > London Bar > Court of Protection and community care > Law firm and leading lawyer rankings

Editorial

Other

Index of tables

  1. Court of Protection and community care - Leading sets
  2. Leading Silks
  3. 2018 Silks
  4. 2019 Silks
  5. Leading Juniors

Leading Silks

  1. 1
    • David Lock QC - Landmark ChambersIs the ‘go-to’ person for cases requiring astute strategic advice – his knowledge of the NHS is unsurpassed.
    • Fenella Morris QC - 39 Essex ChambersHas excellent knowledge of the structure, commissioning framework and legal responsibilities of both commissioners and provider organisations within the NHS.
    • Michael Mylonas QC - Serjeants' Inn ChambersHis advocacy is eloquent and he has the unique skill of being able to robustly present the case whilst also showing great empathy and compassion.
    • Jenni Richards QC - 39 Essex ChambersAlways instils great confidence in everything she does, has the ear of the court and has an absolute command of all the papers.
  2. 2
  3. 3

2018 Silks

  1. 1

2019 Silks

  1. 1

Leading Juniors

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3

39 Essex Chambers has a ‘real depth of counsel in the Court of Protection arena, from the most senior counsel through to excellent newly called juniors’. Members advise across all areas and are regularly instructed by claimants, relatives, statutory agencies, private bodies, and the Official Solicitor. ‘The depth of talent means someone is always available’, said one client. The set has particular expertise in health and welfare matters as well as strength in handling property and affairs issues. Recent examples of work include Jenni Richards QC acting for the Clinical Commissioning Group in an ongoing dispute between public bodies over an historic responsibility for funding the provision of services to a severely disabled young person. Elsewhere, Fenella Morris QC advised in a dispute between relatives and a hospital about whether a frail and elderly patient should be moved to palliative care.

Serjeants' Inn Chambers  ‘a leading set for Court of Protection work in England and Wales. It has real strength in depth particularly having added a number of members over the last year or so’. Michael Mylonas QC acted in the highly publicised case of Alfie Evans, which concerned the withdrawal of treatment to the 21-month-old child with advanced neurodegenerative brain disease. The set's members are also skilled in property and affairs matters, as well as receiving a steady flow of instructions from the private client market. Chambers is considered 'a supremely efficient operation that is filled with stellar people who are a delight to work with'. Christopher Johnston QCacted for the Official Solicitor who was representing the patient’s interests in a case where permission was obtained to withdraw feeding from a woman with irreversible brain damage.

5 Stone Buildings is 'an outstanding set for Court of Protection matters', advising on the full range of property and affairs issues as well as health and welfare applications. Tracey Angus QC advised on a major case which raised complex issues about the interpretation of a testamentary instrument that was made by the Court of Protection. Members regularly represent clients in disputes over issues such as statutory wills and gifts, lasting and enduring powers of attorney, as well as deputyships.

Doughty Street Chambersis a formidable set with a depth of expertise’. This 'excellent' set's members handle the full array of community care and Court of Protection matters. In one example, Aswini Weereratne QC acted for MIND in Welsh Ministers v PJ. The case looked at whether it was lawful to deprive a patient of their liberty with a community treatment order under the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended).

1GC | Family Law is ‘excellent for cases where there is a cross-over between Court of Protection and family law issues.’ Areas of expertise include advising on forced marriages involving incapacitated adults where these marriages have happened or are about to happen either in the UK or abroad. The set also has a particular specialism in representing 16-17-year olds who lack capacity and who are emerging from the care system or are otherwise in crisis.

Garden Court Chambers is described by some as a ‘very good set overall with members who are willing to assist’. The set's members act in Court of Protection matters at all levels and undertake health and welfare cases as well as covering property and affairs matters for the Official Solicitor, professional advocate litigation friends, family members, and public bodies. It ‘has a wide range of excellent, talented, and skilled barristers who are often willing to step in even at the last minute to help with urgent and complex cases.’ Representing the local authority in T (A Child), Amanda Weston QC acted in a leading Court of Appeal decision which considered whether a ‘Gillick competent’ transgender teen, in the care of an LA, could be deprived of their liberty under the court’s inherent jurisdiction where no secure accommodation was available.

Matrix Chambers is filled with ‘barristers who are unstuffy and ooze expertise’. Members act for individuals (through the Official Solicitor), local authorities, and NHS bodies in the Court of Protection, in many cases involving deprivation of liberty issues and the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. David Wolfe QC acted for the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the leading Supreme Court case of D v Birmingham City Counsel, which concerned the extent to which the parents of a teenager with learning disabilities could lawfully consent to their child being detained without any court supervision.

RADCLIFFE CHAMBERS is described by some as a 'top set' and a 'good, solid chancery practice' with a number of junior barristers – Justin Holmes and Piers Feltham in particular – well regarded by instructing solicitors due to their knowledge of Court of Protection matters. These include expertise in trusts and statutory wills advice to advising on personal welfare matters such as capacity to marry issues or choice of residential care homes. In one example, Feltham advised on a contested application for a statutory will disposing of a large estate between charities.

Interview with...

Law firm partners and practice heads explain how their firms are adapting to clients' changing needs

GC Diversity and Inclusion Report

In partnership with...

International comparative guides

Giving the in-house community greater insight to the law and regulations in different jurisdictions.

Select Practice Area

Press releases

The latest news direct from law firms. If you would like to submit press releases for your firm, send an email request to

Legal Developments in the UK

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Court of Justice rules on source of income for Derivative Residence applications

    On 2 October 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Bajratari v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Directive 2004/38/EC) Case C-93/18 which concerns Chen applications and the source of funds for self-sufficiency. 
  • End of the ‘centre of life test’ in Surinder Singh cases?

    In the recent case of  ZA (Reg 9. EEA Regs; abuse of rights) Afghanistan   [2019] UKUT 281 (IAC ), the Upper Tribunal found that there is no basis in EU law for the centre of life test, as set out in Regulation 9(3)(a) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (the “Regulations”). It further found that it is not to be applied when Judges assess  Surinder Singh  cases that appear before them.
  • Terms of employment as a sole representative

    In this article we examine the working arrangements of sole representatives, looking at the terms and conditions of employment that the Home Office will expect a sole representative to have in order to qualify as a representative of an overseas business.  
  • Can Sole Representatives Be Shareholders?

    The Immigration Rules require that an applicant for a  sole representative visa  is not “a  majority shareholder in the overseas business”.
  • Immigration Skills Charge - A Guide for Employers

    As a Sponsor, you may be required to pay the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC) each time you sponsor a migrant in the  Tier 2 General  or  Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) Long-term Staff  subcategory.
  • 5 FAQS about paragraph 320(11)

    In applications for entry clearance where the applicant has a negative immigration history in the UK, the application may be refused under the general grounds for refusal, which are found in part 9 of the Immigration Rules. Where an applicant has  ‘previously contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intentions of the Immigration Rules’,  the application could be refused under paragraph 320(11). In this post we look at five frequently asked questions about paragraph 320(11). 
  • Multiple nationality and multiple citizenship (including dual nationality and dual citizenship)

    British nationality law permits multiple nationality and multiple citizenship, including dual nationality and dual citizenship.
  • Applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the Exceptional Talent or Promise Category

    The  Exceptional Talent  and Exceptional Promise categories are for individuals who are recognised leaders or emerging leaders in their field of expertise. There are a number of endorsing bodies for lots of different fields of work, including  artists and musicians ,  architects ,  digital experts ,  scientists  and  academics . While there isn’t an endorsing body for every expert, the growing list means that many individuals could enjoy the flexibility that this category has to offer. 
  • PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS – CIVIL AND CRIMINAL

    Syedur Rahmanconsiders the factors that determine when civil proceedings can go ahead before,or at the same time as, criminal proceedings relating to the same circumstances.
  • Rights of appeal after the Immigration Act 2014

    The Immigration Act 2014 (“the 2014 Act”) reduced the circumstances in which the refusal of an immigration application will give rise to a right of appeal. The  explanatory notes  to the 2014 Act state that the Act was intended to restructure rights of appeal to the Immigration Tribunal. Previously, a right of appeal to the Immigration Tribunal existed against any of the 14 different immigration decisions listed in s.82 of the  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002  (“the 2002 Act”). As explained below, whether or not the refusal of an immigration application currently generates a right of appeal depends on the subject matter of the application rather than its categorisation.

Press Releases in the UK

The latest news direct from law firms. If you would like to submit press releases for your firm, send an email request to