LPC Law Statement in Response to Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Langley [2026] EWCC 1 (7 January 2026)

Halborg v Apple is the decision of a Circuit Judge on Appeal who heard extensive legal argument from counsel. VCS v. Langley is the decision of a District Judge who did not have the benefit of hearing arguments from counsel.

District Judge Pratt’s interpretation of schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 has been heavily influenced by comments from Lord Bingham’s judgment in HS (Chambers Proceedings: Rights of Audience) [1998] taken from White Book commentary. Judge Pratt does not appear to appreciate that, despite Lord Bingham’s observations on the previous legislation, in that case the Court of Appeal unanimously held that the lower court was wrong to deny the advocate a right of audience, because they could not say that they fell outside the wording of the legislation. By not following the ratio of the judgment, Judge Pratt has inserted requirements into the statute which do not exist, including:

i.) At paragraph 21 of his judgement Judge Pratt states that the person must establish they have “assisted in the conduct of the litigation” [emphasis added]. This is not correct. The wording of the statute is simply that the person’s work must include assisting in the conduct of litigation.

ii.) At paragraph 22 Judge Pratt states that the exempt person must be “under the instructions and supervision of the authorised litigator in the proceedings” [emphasis added]. The 2007 Act does not require this. The requirement of the 2007 Act is that the individual is instructed and supervised (either generally or in relation to the proceedings) by a person entitled to conduct litigation.

Judge Pratt’s conclusion that advocacy cannot assist in the conduct of litigation because exercising a right of audience and the conduct of litigation are separate activities is a non-sequitur. It is perfectly possible for one activity to assist another distinct activity. For example, an individual fixes roof tiles. Another individual holds the ladder for the individual fixing roof tiles. They are distinct activities but the individual holding the ladder clearly assists the individual fixing roof tiles.

The question is whether advocacy assists in the conduct of litigation and it is perfectly possible for one activity to assist another distinct activity. In Halborg Judge Backhouse concluded that the advocate had assisted in the conduct of litigation by both his advocacy and other tasks he had undertaken under instructions.

It is worth noting that if you conclude that advocacy cannot be assisting in the conduct of litigation, because the legislation only requires the individual to be instructed and supervised when assisting in the conduct of litigation then any individual benefiting from the exemption does not have to be supervised and instructed when appearing before a judge. The opposite of what was intended by the legislation.

LPC Law is regulated by the SRA and our advocates are required to act in accordance with the SRA’s code of conduct at all times to exactly the same extent as managing clerks were. If they do not the supervising solicitor at LPC Law may be subject to disciplinary proceedings and the advocate could be made subject to an order under s43 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The safeguards that protect clients when LPC advocates attend court are exactly the same safeguards that protected clients when an unauthorised managing clerks attended a hearing.

LPC Law carries professional indemnity insurance which covers all hearings undertaken by advocates we instruct.