Court Hearing: Was the Claimant's Representative a Solicitior?

[Esio Trot]

I became Company Secretary to a Residents Property Management Company in relation to 74 flats in October 2015

It was badly managed, and no buildings/employers/public/property owners insurance was in place for almost the whole year until we were appointed. There is a spurious liability claim for an alleged fall from a protruding nail on the stairs (the stairs are brick and concrete, with no nails used in their construction or maintenance) supposedly in early September.

A company of no win-no fee lawyers have taken the case, and even though we have disputed and on directions of the directors refused to disclose insurance details, they won't let go. The took out a court action demanding that we reveal the details of the insurer, and at the hearing the judge sided with them and issued the order that we reveal details. The court order received following the hearing states 'Upon hearing the Defendant in person and hearing the Solicitor for the Claimant ....'. The claimant herself did not attend

I noticed that on her witness statement to the court that the case handler refers to herself simply as a 'Senior Litigator'. Upon doing a full search of just her surname on the solicitor.lawsociety.org site there is no entry for her, which leads me to think that she is not a Solicitor. I have written to them today querying this, and asking if she is not a solicitor how she came to represent the claimant without her being present as required by the Lay Representative Regulations.

So, good people, my questions are whether it is possible for her to be a bone-fide solicitor and not be on the register? If not, what grounds for complaint do I have?

[Amethyst]

Re: Court Hearing: Was the Claimant's Representative a Solicitior?

Was it the same person who wrote the witness statement that represented in court? Think that's the first question.

[Esio Trot]

Re: Court Hearing: Was the Claimant's Representative a Solicitior?

Was it the same person who wrote the witness statement that represented in court? Think that's the first question.

Certainly was - she introduced herself before the hearing. My wife has just now found her on her company's website and where she is described as a Paralegal!

[R0b]

Re: Court Hearing: Was the Claimant's Representative a Solicitior?

Can you clarify what you mean by the Lay Representative Regulations? I've not heard of those regulations ever! Unless you are referring to something else such as a code of conduct relating to a particular body.

Did this paralegal sign the claim form? I would be very surprised if her law firm would have let her do that but if she did then she could be committing a criminal offence.

As for the Order, that's just a standard template the court uses so it may well be the courts mistake given that she stated a senior litigator in her statement, solicitors would usually state they are a solicitor and anything else would give the impression that they are not legally qualified. However if you wish to be pedantic and want to give it a shot you could argue that she would be in breach of SRA code of conduct by misleading the court and seek to overturn the order but it will be a minor procedural error and probably get rejected.

I have to say though if the director refused to hand over the insurance details you can't expect to win the application for disclosure when it would be reasonable to do so.

The legal services act sets out what is a regulated and unregulated activity, attending the small claims court who is not a solicitor is allowed (this will be rights of audience) However issuing the claim form and conducting litigation (carrying out work relating to litigation) is a criminal offence unless it is supervised then it is not.

That being said you could potentially have an argument in that the paralegal and/or the firm have breached the SRA code of conduct under Chapter 5 and the indicative behaviours. One of those behaviours states that a person shall not act as an advocate or anyone else in the firm if they are to be a witness in the proceedings as it will prejudice their independence. If she was the sole witness then could be argued that she is in breach of the codes and should not have been allowed to act on behalf of the client as well as being a witness - this the order should be set aside.

Whether that is enough is a matter for the court butwil li cut a cost of appeal/set aside