“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

In re: Gardner (Claire) v. The Inconvenience of Accountability


The Case of the Vanishing Counsel

In re: Representation, Retraction & the 32-Minute Retreat

Filed: 14 August 2025
Reference: SWANK-LD/CG-2025/0814
Filename: 2025-08-14_SWANK_Addendum_WithdrawalOnEveOfIRO_ClaireGardner.pdf
Summary: On the eve of a statutory IRO meeting, a solicitor accepted instructions, received explicit written terms requiring robust action against the local authority, and withdrew 32 minutes later.

I. What Happened

On 14 August 2025, mere hours before a 15 August Independent Reviewing Officer meeting concerning four U.S.–U.K. citizen children, Hanne & Co Solicitors — acting through Ms. Claire Gardner — performed a feat of procedural vanishing rarely seen outside conjuring circles.

The morning began with polite urgency: my Legal Division requested a video meeting, forwarded the IRO invitation, and confirmed the need for her attendance. Ms. Gardner accepted, a Teams link was issued, and the scene was set for a 13:30 consultation.

At 12:48, we sent a document titled Confirmation of Representation Terms & Immediate Instruction — the sort of finely-wrought instruction any conscientious solicitor would frame, not flee from. It stipulated: hold the local authority fully accountable; reject systemic procedural decay; act decisively.

By 13:20 — a mere 32 minutes later and 10 minutes before the agreed meeting — Ms. Gardner declared herself unavailable due to a “family emergency” and that her department had “no capacity.” The withdrawal was instant, total, and impeccably timed to avoid any actual representation before the IRO.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Ms. Gardner’s withdrawal occurred immediately after receipt of instructions to pursue accountability against the local authority.

  • That such timing is, at minimum, suspicious; at maximum, indicative of systemic conflicts in safeguarding-related representation.

  • That the withdrawal deprived the client of representation in the final hours before a statutory review.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is not merely about one solicitor’s sudden loss of capacity — it is about the hollowing-out of representation itself. When legal professionals exit stage left the moment “accountability” is uttered, they do not merely leave the client exposed; they leave the system rotting from within.

IV. Violations

  • SRA Principles: Failure to act in the client’s best interests; undermining public trust.

  • Code of Conduct for Solicitors: Withdrawal without reasonable notice or safeguarding of client position.

  • Common Sense & Common Decency: Abrupt abandonment in the shadow of an urgent statutory hearing.

V. SWANK’s Position

We find the choreography of this withdrawal — its timing, its proximity to explicit anti-LA instructions, its occurrence on the eve of a statutory meeting — to be beyond professional discourtesy. It is evidence. Evidence that when robust advocacy threatens to inconvenience institutional comfort, the machinery of representation too often grinds to a halt.

We will ensure that this matter is placed before the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Family Court, the Independent Reviewing Officer, and every relevant oversight body until it is recorded for what it is: a procedural betrayal, timed to perfection.

Filed by:
✒️ Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd
On behalf of the SWANK Legal Division

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach. We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.

No comments:

Post a Comment

This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.

We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.

If you post here, you’re part of the record.

Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.