Unprofessional behaviour of non-lawyer advocates in the Employment Court
Unprofessional behaviour of non-lawyer advocates in the Employment Court
Tuesday 22 April, 2025
The recent Employment Court decision of Joyce v Ultimate Siteworks Ltd highlights the challenges posed by the conduct of non-lawyer employee advocates who do not belong to professional regulatory bodies.
The conduct of Mr Joyce’s advocate included unprofessional correspondence and allegations of acts of harassment; abusive emails, late night phone calls, and posting of one star Google reviews. Judge Holden expected representatives to deal with each other respectfully and with courtesy. She found that in this case the advocate had acted unprofessionally and in an abusive manner.
Ultimate Siteworks submitted that the advocate’s conduct should be looked at when considering an offset by any notional award in favour of Mr Joyce. Judge Holden disagreed as she could not find a link between the advocate’s behaviour and Mr Joyce to make him responsible for his advocate’s behaviour.
The Judge noted that there were limits to the Court’s ability to involve itself in the conduct of non-lawyer advocates and there are no rules addressing the issue. Had the advocate been a member of a professional body, Judge Holden would have considered referring his conduct to that body.
Judge Holden went on to emphasise that just because an advocate is not a member of a professional body, doesn’t mean they can avoid the scrutiny of the Court in respect of their conduct in court proceedings. They do not have an unfettered right to appear before the Court:
“The Court is not obliged to sit still and see its own processes abused. When that happens, the Court has the inherent power to control the representatives in relation to matters before it... The Court may regulate the conduct of a representative where, in the course of a court proceeding, they engage in unacceptable conduct. In my view, and recognising there is conflicting authority, this can include preventing a representative from continuing with a proceeding where the circumstance require that.”
While the Joyce case may send a warning to non-lawyer advocates, whether the Court will take any concrete steps remains to be seen. Judge Holden herself pointed out the Court’s limitations. Access to justice is crucial to the rule of law and non-lawyer advocates are seen to provide more affordable services. For these reasons, the Court is likely to continue to indulge unprofessional conduct.
The decision does underscore the benefits of having a regulatory framework to address conduct, competence, and complaints involving such advocates. It may be legislative chance is necessary to make this happen.
