Judge McKay: Unqualified Agency Advocates Risk Undermining Legal System

Judge: Unqualified agency advocates “risk undermining legal system”

8 April 2026 Posted by Neil Rose

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 – 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.”

Sign up to our free e-newsletter

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published. Name *

Email *

Comment *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog

8 April 2026

Client accounts: Opportunity, obligation and the risks in between

The profitability gap between well-run firms and the rest is not primarily a function of size, location or practice area – it is a function of financial management.

Read More More Blogs 7 April 2026

Motor finance – the FCA is more worried about banks than consumers

The Financial Conduct Authority’s motor finance redress scheme announced last week amounts to one of the largest ever consumer failures by the regulator.

Read More More Blogs 2 April 2026

Mazur: a symptom not a cause?

If Mazur is a symptom, what does it mean for the underlying health of our civil justice system: the ‘finest legal system in the world’?

Read More More Blogs

Upcoming Webinars

• 09/04/2026 ### Providing for pets in wills
• 14/04/2026 ### The court’s case management powers in practice

• 15/04/2026

  Rights of way- key points for conveyancers

  More Webinars

  Conferences

- ### Housing Condition Conference 2026

• Claims Futures Conference 2026

  Related News

• “Deplorable” vaginal mesh solicitor put money before clients

• Solicitor develops free software to organise court bundles

• Cockerill: Costs budgeting ‘lite’ pilots set for expansion

• BSB rejects Good Law Project complaint over gender critical barrister

• Chambers and ex-tenant face trial over unpaid rent

  More Stories

  Features

• Flat roof developments: legal disputes and strategic representation

- ### Mazur – a problem 300 years in the making

- ### When the dust doesn’t settle: Enforcement in housing disrepair claims

More Features

Associate News

• ### Nearly one in eight employers does not provide sexual harassment training, as key Employment Rights Act deadline arrives
• ### 7 practical tips for planning your digital legacy
• ### HMRC property transaction reaction: “Ominous tone for the housing market”
• ### From helpdesk to Head of Product: Why the best product leaders start by listening
• ### Why transparency is the new currency in personal injury law
• ### Verisk Claims data bites: Personal injury psychological injury trends
• ### Why client onboarding still frustrates both clients and law firms More Stories ## Associates

#### Linetime #### Access Legal #### Acquira Professional Services #### Ignite Specialty Risk #### SOS Legal #### Internet Erasure Ltd #### Temple Legal Protection #### Verisk #### Search Acumen #### CEL Solicitors #### DR Solicitors #### OneSearch Direct #### DG Legal #### tmGroup #### Perfect Portal #### BigHand #### SearchFlow #### Valid8 IP #### Actionstep #### Clio #### Dye & Durham #### Miller Insurance Services LLP #### Osprey Approach #### Fenchurch Legal #### O'Connors #### Auto Claims Assist #### Stridon #### Landmark Information Group #### Lockton Companies LLP #### LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions #### Litera #### Recovery First Limited #### LPG #### AxiaFunder #### LEAP Legal Software #### Finders International #### Legal intelligence from LexisNexis® #### Nexa Law #### Sentry Funding #### LexisNexis®InterAction® #### Conscious Solutions #### Allianz Legal Protection #### Checkboard #### Financial & Legal #### Document Direct #### Legmark #### National Claims #### Fraser and Fraser #### VinciWorks #### R&R Solutions #### Qanooni #### Bundledocs #### National Accident Law #### Express Solicitors #### Brabners #### iCOFA #### OneAdvanced #### InfoTrack #### National Accident Helpline #### ARAG

Sign-up for our e‑newsletter

Get our news roundup every Friday.

Email * Sign-up here Services Directory Advertise Become an Associate