Young: Circumstances almost identical to previous case
The use of unqualified advocates by agencies has “the potential to undermine the integrity of the legal system”, a judge has ruled.
“To allow unqualifed persons to routinely represent parties in court if they cannot properly be said to be supervised and are not accountable to any regulated professional body is an unsafe practice and is not permitted by the Legal Services Act 2007,” said Deputy District Judge McKay in Cardiff.
While the advocate, as Mr Razza, could be said to be assisting in the conduct of litigation as an advocate and acting under instructions from solicitor Edmund Shoreham-Lawson, the principal of ELMS Legal, “I do not consider that it has been proved that Mr Shoreham-Lawson is supervising Mr Razza in any meaningful sense of the word”.
The case was a small claim concerning a parking fine; the defendant was costs lawyer Richie Young, who questioned whether Mr Razza had a right of audience.
DDJ McKay said he bore in mind the ruling in January of District Judge Pratt in Haverfordwest, who held that a so-called solicitor’s agent [1] – an unqualified advocate instructed by an agency on behalf of a law firm – did not meet the Legal Services Act 2007 requirements for rights of audience.
The case also involved ELMS Legal, which is a law firm regulated by CILEx Regulation.
As in that matter, the issue was whether the unqualified person came within the definition of an ‘exempt person’ as set out in paragraph 1(7) of schedule 3 of the Act.
This requires them to be assisting in the conduct of litigation under instructions given by an authorised person with the right to conduct litigation, and to be under the supervision of that person.
DDJ McKay said: “It is my judgement that Mr Razza can be said to be assisting in the conduct of litigation as an advocate and acting under instructions from Mr Shoreham-Lawson but I do not consider that it has been proved that Mr Shoreham-Lawson is supervising Mr Razza in any meaningful sense of the word.
“I disagree with the contents of the note from ELMS Solicitors when it says that the supervision of advocates is a regulatory function and not one that concerns the courts…
“In my judgement the arrangements created by Elms Solicitors and similar operators have the potential to undermine the integrity of the legal system.”
He questioned whether Mr Razza had ever met Mr Shoreham-Lawson “or ever had a proper supervision session with him”.
The judge added: “If I am wrong about that, then it is for Mr Shoreham-Lawson to satisfy the court that he has a proper system of supervision in place.”
The practice note from ELMS Legal said all the advocates it used were provided with letters of instruction, training and support, and were required to provide comprehensive attendance notes for supervisory purposes.
“In my judgement, this paragraph is too light on detail,” DDJ McKay said. “The judge is entitled to be re-assured that a proper system of supervision is in place before he permits an unqualified advocate to address him.
“I have no idea how many unqualified advocates are supervised by Mr Shoreham- Lawson. It could be dozens or even hundreds. I have no idea of how Mr Shoreham-Lawson arranges training and support for the advocates.
“He should provide sufficient information for the court to be satisfied that the person appearing is entitled to an exemption. He has not done so in this case. I am therefore justified in not allowing Mr Razza rights of audience.”
Mr Young told Legal Futures that he was aware of the decision of DJ Pratt and that his circumstances were almost identical: “The parking company had instructed DCB Legal who had then instructed ELMS Legal to send someone to court.
“When I saw the same pattern emerging in my case I knew immediately that it was a relevant point to raise at the start of the hearing… I am glad I raised it because it proved to be an important part of the hearing and assisted my case greatly.”
DDJ McKay went on to award Mr Young his costs because of the way that Smart Parking pursued the claim, which was issued in September 2025, nearly five years after the parking charge was incurred.
Mr Young said the first time he was aware of the charge was June 2025. He reached an agreement to pay £60 but the judge said “it appears that Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd, who had been instructed by the claimants to recover the debt, were either unaware of the settlement or ignored it”.
He held that the commencement of proceedings was premature “and the way in which the claimant and its agent dealt with the claim and the defendant was unreasonable”.
Mr Young said: “Whilst I am grateful that the court found in my favour, there is a darker reality to this process that cannot be ignored. The private parking industry is by design structured to frustrate, intimidate and coerce consumers into paying charges they may not actually owe.
“The tactics employed, threats of county court judgments and relentless correspondence, are calculated to wear people down into simply paying rather than fighting back. More must be done to regulate this industry and protect ordinary people from these practices.”