HHJ Backhouse requires higher steering as she dismisses problem to County Courtroom advocate’s proper of viewers
Unqualified advocates are allowed to appear in courtroom regardless of the objections of barristers and solicitors, a judge has discovered.
Her Honour Judge Backhouse discovered in favour of an advocate from LPC Regulation whose solicitor opponent accused him of getting no proper to argue a strike-off listening to.
County Courtroom advocates, typically often known as solicitor’s brokers, are not legally certified however incessantly appear in minor instances. The position is commonly a helpful stepping stone for wannabe legal professionals in search of expertise however certified legal professionals can resent the interlopers.
The spat in this case arose throughout a declare towards Apple over an allegedly faulty cellphone. Apple utilized to have the declare struck out and despatched alongside a Mr Erridge, a bar course graduate and advocate instructed by LPC Regulation. The claimant’s solicitor-advocate, Scott Halborg, objected, saying that Erridge had been “yanked off the street” and had no proper of viewers.
The judge backed Erridge and Halborg appealed to Central London County Courtroom.
Below the Legal Services Act 2007, advocates who are aiding with the conduct of litigation below a solicitor’s supervision have a proper of viewers the place the listening to is happening “in chambers”. This phrase could be thought unhelpfully archaic, since there isn’t any longer such factor as a listening to in chambers below the fashionable Civil Process Rules.
However Judge Backhouse held that the “in chambers” proper of viewers nonetheless exists as long as the “the hearing in question is broadly of the type of hearing which would have been heard in chambers” in the outdated days.
These embrace hearings on mortgage possession, warrants of execution or possession, and a few enforcement orders.
Backhouse additionally discovered that Erridge had certainly been “assisting in the conduct of litigation” and was correctly supervised by a solicitor at LPC Regulation, as required by the 2007 Act.
In consequence, he “was entitled to exercise a right of audience” towards Halborg.
The judge famous that her discovering contradicted a number of earlier County Courtroom selections on this situation, so it will be useful for a better courtroom to settle the query as soon as and for all.
LPC Regulation welcomed the choice, saying that Backhouse had supplied a “comprehensive analysis of the legislation”. A spokesperson advised Authorized Cheek: “This judgment makes clear that the practice of solicitor agents appearing ‘in chambers’ hearings is entirely legitimate, provided that they are properly instructed and supervised, which LPC Law’s advocates always are”.
In a press release Halborg stated: “I took the point about rights of audience because I am a solicitor advocate and I felt that there is a real danger that unregulated representatives are breaching the statutory provisions and stretching to breaking point what was intended by parliament by the exemption.”
“Unfortunately the Court of Appeal remitted the case back to the County Court on the basis of it being perceived as academic, and it seemed to me very hard to get permission later to appeal again to the Court of Appeal from the considered judgment on appeal of HHJ Backhouse, a judge I greatly respect from previous professional work. As HHJ Backhouse made clear however, this remains an area crying out for guidance from the higher courts.”