Add this expertise to your shortlist
Jim Hirschman has a busy practice handling both health and welfare and property and affairs cases. His experience in judicial review and family has contributed to making him a thoughtful and effective advocate who helps find acceptable solutions to parties’ strongly held but conflicting views.
Health and Welfare
Jim has experience in health and welfare matters. He has worked on cases concerning:
- conflicting capacity evidence, including fluctuating capacity
- forced marriage protection orders
- capacity declarations and best interests decisions including issues relating to sexual relations, marriage, care, residence, medical treatment and alcohol consumption
- where a young adult with significant health needs should be educated
He is regularly instructed by private individuals and local authorities.
Property and Affairs
In the property and affairs context, Jim has experience of cases involving:
- conflicting capacity evidence
- applications to appoint a deputy
- disputes around enduring or lasting powers of attorney
- matters complicated by the involvement of trusts, alleged dissipation of assets, extent of a deputy’s authority, disputed wills and complex business and land ownership arrangements
He has been instructed by private individuals, local authorities and by the Office of the Public Guardian.
Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court, or Safeguarding of Vulnerable Adults and Children
Jim has been regularly instructed in cases involving the inherent jurisdiction of the high court often related to issues of deprivation of liberty in cases involving a young person’s drug abuse, exploitation or involvement in organised crime.
With a Master of Laws (LLM) in public law, he is well placed to consider challenges against the decisions of local authorities (including judicial reviews and claims under the Human Rights Act 1998).
Jim is willing to accept instructions surrounding medical treatment. He has experience of best interests decision concerning addiction, rehabilitation and the way in which medication should be administered.
He is often instructed by local authorities.
Notable cases include:
Re A - a complicated case culminating in a 7-day final hearing. The case necessitated live evidence and cross examination of a variety of experts including from a neurodevelopmental disability psychiatrist, an independent social worker, a hepatologist, and a psychiatrist specialising in addiction. The Local Authority’s case and care plan was accepted.
Re B - A section 21a challenge. It was complex in the sense that P had a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder which had historically resulted in numerous hospital admissions but also periods where limited interventions were required. The issue before the Court was whether P should return to live at home with a package of care or whether she should reside in a residential care home. The Local Authority’s position that it was in P’s best interests to be cared for in the care home and this was accepted at final hearing.
A v Z - instructed by a local authority who sought a deprivation of liberty order. The case related to a young person who had run away from her care home and suffered significant harm after becoming involved with suspected members of a county lines network. The deprivation of liberty order was granted under the inherent jurisdiction of the high court.
B v C - represented a mother in a forced marriage protection case that raised issues of capacity to marry, capacity to consent to sexual relations and the jurisdiction of the family court.
E v F - acted for the Office of the Public Guardian in a matter concerning an invalid lasting power of attorney and cross-border assets. The registration of the lasting power of attorney was duly to be cancelled.