CILEX today described the judgment in Cilex & Ors v Mazur & Ors as a victory for its members, ‘access to justice, the interests of consumers and the encouragement of a thriving, diverse and competitive legal sector’.
Describing the ‘common-sense’ judgment as the ‘most consequential for legal services in recent history’, CILEX chief executive Jennifer Coupland said she was ‘delighted’ that the Court of Appeal had brought much needed clarity to the conduct of litigation, and the role of authorised and unauthorised professionals.
‘It means the profession can now operate effectively, maintaining high standards and consumer confidence whilst opening up legal services to alternative business models and providers,’ she said. She thanked CILEX’s ‘outstanding legal team’ who all acted pro bono.
The representative body also announced plans to lobby the government to address ‘regulatory shortcomings’ of the Legal Services Act.
Law Society vice president Brett Dixon said the Society would be updating its guidance and practice note ‘to ensure it aligns with the ruling’.
He added: ‘All the parties to the proceedings before the Court of Appeal were there to seek clarity for practitioners and consumers of legal services with disputes.
‘Whilst the court did not accept all of the Law Society’s points, its judgment provides an outline framework for those involved in litigation to use in assessing whether supervision is adequate and lawful. The judgment confirms the continuing importance of supervision being in place which will require further regulatory guidance.
‘In light of the judgment, we are updating our guidance and practice note to ensure it aligns with the ruling. We will also be working with other legal bodies including CILEX, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Services Board to continue to support the profession.’
In its response, the SRA recognised ‘the concern and confusion among practitioners and firms’ after the High Court’s ruling and ‘welcomed the clear direction from the Court of Appeal’.
It added: ‘The clarity the judgment provides will enable us to review our guidance and update it where necessary. We will do this as soon as possible. We will be working closely with other regulators and organisations to make sure there is consistency and clarity for everyone.’
In the meantime, firms or lawyers with queries should contact the SRA’s Ethics Helpline for advice and support.
CILEX was represented by Nicholas Bacon KC, Helen Evans KC, Teen Jui Chow and Faye Metcalfe, of 4 New Square, instructed by Iain Miller, Stephen Nelson and Phoebe Alexander at Kingsley Napley and Greg Cox of Simpson Millar.
The Law Society was represented by Richard Coleman KC and Marianne Butler, instructed by Russell-Cooke LLP.
For those of you outside the UK here’s a google ai summary
Local Government Lawyer +1
- CILEX’s Argument: They contended that the High Court’s previous ruling was at odds with centuries of legal practice and modern business models. CILEX argued that the statutory scheme distinguishes between the ultimate responsibility for litigation (which must stay with an authorised person) and the performance of constituent tasks, which can be delegated to supervised staff.
- The Original High Court Decision (Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys): The lower court had previously ruled that litigation steps could only be performed by authorised persons. This created a binary distinction where non-authorised staff were limited to “supporting” or “assisting” rather than “conducting” litigation, a boundary that critics argued was unsustainable and unclear.
- The LSB and Other Parties: While the Legal Services Board (LSB) had a differing view, most other parties eventually agreed that conducting litigation involves both performing tasks and being responsible for them.
-
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary +4
- Lawfulness of Supervision: It is not unlawful for an unauthorised person to conduct litigation tasks on behalf of an authorised individual, provided there are “appropriate arrangements for supervision and delegation”.
- Responsibility remains with the Authorised Person: The authorised individual (e.g., the solicitor) retains the ultimate legal responsibility for the case. Therefore, they are the one technically “carrying on” the conduct of litigation.
- Nature of Supervision: The court rejected the restrictive “supporting vs. conducting” distinction. Instead, it noted that the required level of supervision varies by circumstance—ranging from high-level approval for complex tasks to regular meetings and work sampling for routine ones.
- Legislative Intent: The court held that the Legal Services Act 2007 was not intended to disrupt the widespread, regulated practice of delegating litigation work to unqualified individuals.
Local Government Lawyer +4
Regulator Response: The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the Law Society both welcomed the clarity and are currently updating their practice notes and guidance to align with the framework provided by the court.
