There is an old saying that a fool is a person who does the same thing, twice, expecting a different result. Now, while we do live in a probabilistic universe where anything /could/ happen, that description seems to be a dictionary definition of Edmund Shoreham-Lawson of Elms Legal.
On 17 January, Ed sent Ms Kauser, an independent advocate and unregistered Barrister, to an MIL hearing at Burnley, previously reported. Mr Wilkie, as a Lay Rep, questioned her right of audience, and she was not allowed to continue with the case.
On 3 February, Ed sent Ms Kauser, an independent advocate and unregistered Barrister, to an MIL hearing at Oldham where, again, Mr Wilkie, as a Lay Rep, questioned her right of audience, and she was not allowed to continue with the case. In passing, she did say that the Burnley case was to be appealed, and asked for leave to appeal the Oldham finding. The Burnley case has not been appealed at the time this blog was published.
Today, Ed sent Mr Howes (senior), a FILEx, to an Excel hearing in Manchester, where Mr Wilkie questioned his right of audience, and, again, the judge examined the matter and did not allow Mr Howes to proceed with the matter.
So, three times Mr Shoreham-Lawson has sent advocates to hearings, knowing that they do not meet the tests in Schedule 3, section 1(7) of the Legal Services Act 2007. Under that act, it is an offence to seek to conduct legal proceedings without a relevant right of audience, and therefore it is an offence to attempt, incite another or conspire with another to seek to do so.
Mr Shoreham-Lawson's business model seems likely to start suffering from some form of die-back disease.
In the meantime, Ed has instructed his advocates (sic) to start attacking Mr Wilkie, due to his employment with Private Parking Appeals. It's a pity then that the Terms and Conditions for PPA make it clear that PPA does not conduct legal proceedings, and the Lay Rep is merely introduced
as a private individual.
Additionally, Mr Wilkie, as Bargepole and Prankster himself, all have rights of audience under Schedule 3, section 1(3) if their client attends, thanks to the Lay Rep order 1999.
Elms Legal Disease, anyone?
Mr Wilkie is now booked several weeks ahead, with MIL, Link, Excel and VCS cases at the forefront of his diary. He hopes that he will not meet any further advocates of Elms Legal seeking to conduct legal proceedings without a relevant right of audience...
John Wilkie notes:
I am happy to say that, without exception, I find the advocates I deal with at court to be personable, friendly people, with whom I could happily share an office, coffee-shop or pub. This includes Ms Kauser, and Mr Howes (senior), and I want to make it clear that my applications are not, in any way a reflection on their capability or qualities as advocates.
My seeking to have any advocate denied right of audience is purely because the matter of conducting legal proceedings is a reserved activity which should only be carried out by appropriate parties for the
protection of the public as a whole.
It is clear that the person in the wrong in this matter is, in fact Ed Shoreham-Lawson, and representations about this will be made to CILEx.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Putting the fun back into parking
Click for guide to fighting ParkingEye court claims
Click for help with low-cost appeals and court defences
I note John Wilkie states "a reflection on their capabilities or qualities as advocates" . The issue is that it is their qualities that are the issue. They know full well they are attempting to break the law as per the legal services act, by trying to represent with no right of audience, yet persist to try this. Plus how many cases do they actually get away with doing this where it is not challenged. Not professional nor within the SRA codes.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with that. Simple matter is that they know, should know or could know the law relating to their conduct in court.
DeleteIt is a sad reflection of any company who send out the execs and put them in the firing line for a potential criminal offence.
Time these companies saw the light and stopped dealing with the PPC's. Or do they not have any morals?
Are any of these upcoming cases in the Manchester/Preston area as i would quite like to see one in person. My own cases were thrown out at the POPLA stage. Must have been something I said :)
ReplyDeleteIt still brings a smile to my face thinking of all the "armchair lawyers giving bad advice" guff on most parking weasels' websites :)
ReplyDeleteIf Elms does not stop this then Lord Justice Wilkie should ask the DJ to refer the matter to plod
ReplyDeleteIf it is an offence contrary to the Legal Services Act 2007, then why has no-one ever challenged this with the SRA or other legal body? Surely this state of affairs cannot continue and a legal challenge should take place.
ReplyDeleteAnd when the day of reckoning comes, as surely as it
ReplyDeletewill, there should be a full enquiry going back at
least six years, to bring any unauthorised advocates
(and their hirers) to book. Many litigants in person have lost to these uber smart opponents who run rings round them. Will these unfortunate defendants receive redress?
Does a barrister or solicitor representing a company through a firm) need to be registered and have a 'number'/SRA/roll;. Mr Howes (who stated he was of Elms Law attended court today (alone) and represented his client. When challenged what his roll/number was) he dvised he had none. In the cost application they submitted they had him (the firm) as counsel. Can someone advise? Thank you
ReplyDeleteAnyone? Further advice when a company sends someone what requirements need to be filled to have audience before the court? Thanks
DeleteElms Legal have form for this kind of thing. Some judges will kick out their representative, others will not. It is an offence to claim right of audience when you have none, so you could try reporting Elms Legal to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority.
DeleteThank you. I did not the representative (in my view) 'dirty' tactics. They lost the CCJ they got. The defendant didn't even know about it until they got the default. She received no letters from them or Excel. Anyway the failed to get the last known address from the DVLA.The costs the submitted (some £900 call it) must have been plucked from this air it seems, Full of errors their witness statement was. Reprehensible conduct putting people under so much stress and anxiety (and costs).
Delete