![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.legalfutures.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/Mr-Justice-Cavanagh.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nCavanagh: Fully satisfied Ms Doble did not know she was conducting litigation<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
A CILEX member running an unregulated business conducted litigation in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007 when she acted on a possession claim, the High Court has ruled.<\/p>\n
This was despite her not going on the record or corresponding with the court on headed notepaper.<\/p>\n
Conducting a reserved legal activity without authorisation is a criminal offence and, when litigation is involved, contempt of court as well under the Act. But Mr Justice Cavanagh held that Sarah Doble did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that she was committing it \u2013 a statutory defence.<\/p>\n
Under the 2007 Act, the conduct of litigation includes functions which are \u201cancillary to the commencement, prosecution, and defence of proceedings before any court in England and Wales\u201d.<\/p>\n
Baxter v Doble & Anor<\/em> [2023] EWHC 486 (KB)<\/a> was an application by the defendant in the possession proceedings to commit Ms Doble and her Somerset-based business, Sarah Doble Associates, for contempt of court by conducting the reserved legal activity of conducting litigation for her client, James Persey.<\/p>\n The judge conducted a detailed examination of the statutory provisions and case law, and concluded that Ms Doble and the firm had indeed conducted litigation.<\/p>\n He said: \u201c[They] did everything for Mr Persey in relation to the proceedings that a solicitor or other authorised person would have done.<\/p>\n \u201cThey gave full-service assistance to Mr Persey, including drafting all of the documents required to comply with formal requirements, giving instructions to counsel, making a payment to court, corresponding with the other side, and ensuring that all procedural steps complied with the CPR.<\/p>\n \u201cSomeone must have conducted this litigation, and it would be wholly artificial to say that Mr Persey did it himself, albeit with support and guidance from the respondents. This would be to understate their involvement. They conducted the litigation for him.\u201d<\/p>\n The only difference from what a solicitor or other authorised person would have done was that Ms Doble did not formally go on the record or use her firm\u2019s notepaper for covering letters when dealing with the court.<\/p>\n \u201cIn my judgment, it would be wrong, and wholly contrary to the statutory purpose as expressed in section 1 of the 2007 Act, for these matters to take activities outside the meaning and scope of the conduct of litigation. This would be to prioritise form over substance.<\/p>\n \u201cIt would mean that the question whether someone was conducting litigation would depend on an arid technicality.<\/p>\n \u201cIndeed, to treat this as the only thing that matters would be to provide an incentive for those who were not authorised persons to conceal their involvement from the court, which cannot be right.\u201d<\/p>\n Ms Doble refers to herself as a graduate member of CILEX. After some years working as a paralegal for a firm of solicitors, she set up her business in 2014, advising and assisting landlords who were having difficulties with tenants.<\/p>\n The judge recorded: \u201cShe felt that there was a gap in the market, because she thought that law firms did not value this area of work and because she would be able to offer services to clients at a lower cost than would be charged by law firms.<\/p>\n \u201cA client offered to provide her with seed-money, and she set up her own business. It was immediately successful.\u201d<\/p>\n The judge described the issues raised by the case as \u201cpotentially of general public importance\u201d. He explained: \u201cThere are a number of other businesses which follow a similar operating model to that followed by the respondents. Some of these assist landlords, and some operate in other spheres, such as taxation.<\/p>\n \u201c[Counsel for the claimant] describe those who are unauthorised to carry out reserved legal activities but who run a business giving assistance to litigants in the courts as \u2018a new legal profession\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n The court invited the Law Society, Legal Ombudsman and CILEX Regulation to make representations as a result.<\/p>\n Cavanagh J said it was clear that Ms Doble was \u201cexperienced and efficient and carried out her work with complete honesty\u201d \u2013 and Ms Doble helped Mr Persey to win his case.<\/p>\n She was, however, given a formal warning by CILEX Regulation in 2017 over conducting litigation because of her then practice of writing to the court under cover of her letterhead. She changed this and was then advised by a specialist regulatory solicitor that she was working within the law.<\/p>\n The judge was \u201cfully satisfied\u201d that Ms Doble did not know, \u201cand did not believe for a moment\u201d, that she was committing the offence, as per the statutory defence.<\/p>\n She was an \u201centirely truthful witness\u201d and it was clear from her evidence that she thought the changes made following the disciplinary proceedings ensured neither she nor the business were conducting litigation.<\/p>\n