Legal execs who litigate, celebrate (until the AI robots annihilate)
The Court of Appeal's overturning of Mazur, has been greeted with the sound of office cava bottles being popped open by legal executives across the land.
Last September, a bombshell ruling in Julia Mazur & Others v Charles Russell Speechlys determined that non-authorised employees of law firms could only support a solicitor in conducting litigation, but that they could not conduct it themselves, even under supervision.
It left non-solicitors, such as legal executives, fearing their roles were untenable and sent firms sent firms scrambling to establish whether they were legally in the clear having spent years relying on a cost-effective workforce to run litigation matters. While other firms used the ruling to bash their opponents. Some lawyers also saw it as an opportunity to offer their expertise and advice (or someone else's) on the matter.
The Court of Appeal had now overturned the decision in Mazur, following an appeal brought by CILEX, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives. It ruled that an unauthorised person can conduct litigation, provided they are under proper supervision.
The court agreed with a key central argument made by CILEX that, before the Legal Services Act 2007, “there was a widespread, general and well-regulated practice of delegation by solicitors to unqualified individuals.”
“This practice of delegation did not absolve solicitors of their professional responsibilities for the performance of the person undertaking delegated duties,” said Sir Colin Birss, in the ruling. “Nor did it undermine either the solicitors’ duties to their clients or their duties to the court.”
CILEX stated that it welcomed the decision, having understood "the considerable distress and uncertainty the September 2025 Mazur judgment caused for many Chartered Legal Executives".
One such CILEX member, Victoria Neale, started out as an office junior at 16 and worked her way up through the ranks, and now holds a senior position in the disputes team at Pepperells solicitors.
"We had reached a point where solicitors and CILEX lawyers were considered equals but Mazur caused that perception to slip unnecessarily," Neale commented. "Having the appeal upheld represents a return to common sense – it means we can once again carry out the work we have always been qualified to do".
She added: "For a lot of people, there simply is not another option to get into law. Not everyone has a law degree or the ability to take time out to return to university. Many young professionals join a law firm, discover a real passion for the work, and need an alternative route to progress."
Becky Scott, a solicitor at the firm opined: "Despite the appeal, there is still a very real worry that clients will start specifying that they do not want legal executives working for them, without realising that some of the best lawyers across the country are legal executives." She added: “I am concerned that this has damaged confidence within the profession and created an unnecessary dividing line between solicitors and non-solicitors.”
At the time of the initial Mazur ruling, last September, there were mixed views from RollOnFriday readers. “No more battery-farms of paralegals/CILEX juniors blindly cranking out low value claims by turning the handle on the case-management system", said one solicitor.
But others who expressed dismay at the original decision, will be pleased with the Court of Appeal's reversal. Last year, an 11PQE solicitor said the “one ray of light" during a "grim" role managing low-value motor claims "was that one of the paralegals working with me was absolutely remarkable”. They added: “I have known many solicitors over the years who were less suitable to handle that work than she was."
The Law Society has now issued guidance to law firms, in light of the Court of Appeal ruling - particularly regarding what supervision is required of non-authorised staff. Law Society vice president, Brett Dixon, said the note sets out their understanding of how "the judgment should be interpreted" pending further guidance from SRA, which the Law Society is working with "to develop".
Comments
52
22
To every toff that downgraded us all and said we were worthless…….. hahahahahahahahahahaha, this one is for you. Up the hardworking Paralegal/Legal Execs/Lit Execs etc etc. Let’s drink some toff tears.
37
9
A shambles from start to finish with the incompetent SRA at the very heart of it, as usual.
13
9
Is the SRA appealing to the Supreme Court or is that it?
23
8
Who supervises the CILEX head of litigation departments?
67
12
As a solicitor, I was disgusted by the glee evident in some of the comments from sneering, self-important arseholes who seemed to revel in the misfortune of others following the original judgment. Hope this puts those pricks back in their box.
18
31
"CILEX lawyers"
These days, solicitors describe most of their staff, to their clients, as "Lawyers" and charge them out at correspondingly extortionate rates.
Could we please go back to calling them "articled Clerks", "Conveyancing Clerks", "Legal Executives" etc (I know it will not happen)
27
37
Atrocious decision, we don’t need more underqualified ambulance chasers getting into the profession via the back door
29
12
This is not a return to pre-September 2025. The judgment makes clear that practitioners who are not authorised persons under the 2007 Act must be properly supervised, and that effectively means that an authorised person must be conducting the litigation.
That's common-sense and in the public interest, and something that had been eroded in the lead-up to the first-instance Mazur decision.
There are skilled, experienced and highly capable CILEXes who will suffer as a result of this, but for every one of them there are many, many more people who have for years been allowed to conduct litigation wholly incompetently and without any (nevermind any proper) supervision, resulting in unnecessary costs and stress being inflicted upon litigants and the waste of court time. It's to be hoped that this will lead to the reining-in of the claims farm industry that has run rampant over the last two decades, but given our utterly supine and hopeless regulator I shan't hold my breath.
14
16
In bananas decision court decides shaved monkeys are free to work again.
10
14
Cilex needs to be abolished and so do solicitor apprentices
12
8
Anonymous 20 April 26 01:18
Why? they are usually more competent than trainees!