Rights of audience: a litigant in person and a lay friend (Legal Services Act 2007)
Darius Farahani is the claimant in a fast track claim in the County Court in England. He has no solicitor and is acting in person. At the trial he wants his friend Kemi, who is not a lawyer and holds no professional qualification, to stand up and make his closing submissions to the judge for him. Kemi will not be paid.
Which of the following best describes the rights of audience at the trial?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer B: Darius may address the court himself as a party, but Kemi may do so only if the court grants her a right of audience in these proceedings.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Exercising a right of audience is a reserved legal activity: a party may address the court in person, but a lay non-party needs a right of audience granted by the court.
Rights of audience: a litigant in person and a lay friend (Legal Services Act 2007)
Under s.12(1)(a) of the Legal Services Act 2007, the exercise of a right of audience is a reserved legal activity. By s.13(2), a person is entitled to carry on a reserved legal activity only if they are an authorised person or an exempt person in relation to it. Schedule 3, para 1 sets out the exempt persons. A party to proceedings is exempt if they would have had a right of audience, in their capacity as a party, had the Act not been passed (para 1(6)). Darius may therefore present his own case. Kemi is not an authorised person and is not a party, so she is exempt only if the court grants her a right of audience in relation to these proceedings (para 1(2)). Whether to grant it is a matter for the judge. Being unpaid does not give her a right to address the court.
Why A is wrong: A lay friend has no automatic right of audience; she is exempt only if the court grants her one under Sch 3 para 1(2).
Why C is wrong: A party is an exempt person under Sch 3 para 1(6), so Darius may present his own case.
Why D is wrong: The Act regulates who may exercise rights of audience, whether paid or not; being unpaid does not make Kemi exempt.
Why E is wrong: A party does not need permission to represent himself; he is exempt under Sch 3 para 1(6).
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Which activities are reserved legal activities? Probate activities v will-writing (Legal Services Act 2007 s.12 and Sch 2)
Which of the following best identifies the service that is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007?
Reserved instrument activities: Land Registry transfer v wills and powers of attorney (LSA Sch 2)
Which document can Gareth's business NOT lawfully prepare for a fee, because preparing it is a reserved legal activity?
Admitting a non-lawyer member to a law firm LLP makes it a licensable body (LSA 2007 s.72)
What is the regulatory consequence of admitting Priya as a member of the LLP?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.