Article by Emma-Justine Michaux
The County Court judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Langley [2026] EWCC 1 squarely confronts an issue that has been bubbling under the surface of civil litigation for years: whether non-qualified advocates, commonly referred to as “solicitor agents”, are entitled to appear in court without their client present. Although not binding, the decision has the potential to cause serious disruption to a business model relied upon daily in courts across England and Wales.
Solicitor agents are non-qualified legal professionals typically contracted on a case-by-case basis by advocacy agencies, rather than being employed by the solicitors with conduct of the litigation. That was precisely the arrangement in Langley. The judgment makes clear, however, that “solicitor agent” is a misleading description. It is not a term recognised by the Legal Services Act 2007 and wrongly suggests an authority that does not exist. The correct legal question is whether the individual is an “Exempt Person” under Schedule 3 of the Act, which alone can confer a right of audience on an unqualified individual.
The recent decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 triggered understandable concern among non-qualified legal professionals. However, the court in Langley was clear that this panic was misplaced. Mazurconcerned who may conduct litigation, not who may exercise rights of audience. Those are distinct reserved legal activities under the Act, and Mazur said nothing about advocacy.
This judgment, by contrast, addresses advocacy head-on. Relying on Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007, the court held that four cumulative conditions must be satisfied for an individual to qualify as an Exempt Person with a right of audience:
- the individual must be assisting in the conduct of litigation;
- they must be acting under the instructions and supervision of an authorised litigator;
- the proceedings must be heard “in chambers”; and
- the proceedings must not be reserved family proceedings.
The court stressed that advocacy alone cannot amount to “assisting in the conduct of litigation”, which is defined as issuing, prosecuting or defending proceedings and performing ancillary functions such as signing statements of truth.
The judgment also confirms that non-qualified advocates are not excluded altogether. In small claims proceedings, a lay representative may address the court provided the party themselves attends, under CPR PD27A and the Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999.
On the facts, the advocate in this case could not meet the exemption test. Neither he nor the advocacy agency had taken any steps in the litigation. The solicitor with conduct of the claim was not supervising or instructing him directly; instead, instructions passed through multiple contractual layers. This fell far short of the traditional model Parliament intended to preserve, namely in-house managing clerks or equivalent individuals working closely under a solicitor’s supervision. Although the hearing could arguably be characterised as one historically heard in chambers, that factor alone was insufficient.
The implications are stark. Advocacy-only agencies routinely attend vast numbers of hearings without clients present. While this decision is not binding, if adopted by a higher court it would place that entire model under acute pressure, with immediate and far-reaching practical consequences for civil litigation practice.
