CILEX to Appeal Seismic Mazur Ruling: What It Means for Legal Executives
The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) has taken a bold step: it is seeking permission to appeal the controversial Mazur judgment in the Court of Appeal. This comes after a High Court ruling earlier this year — in Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP — dramatically limited who can “conduct litigation” under the Legal Services Act 2007. (localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk)
What Was the Mazur Ruling?
In its earlier decision, the High Court found that individual employment within a regulated firm does not automatically give someone the right to conduct litigation, even if they are being supervised by an “authorised person” such as a solicitor. (Parachute Law)
Put simply: unless a CILEX member has specific practice rights to conduct litigation, they cannot take on that role — they are limited to assisting, not leading. (CILEX)
That clarification has sent shockwaves through the sector. CILEX members without the required litigation rights have been left in limbo, and some firms now face urgent restructuring to comply with the ruling. (Legal Futures)
Why Is CILEX Appealing — and What Are the Stakes?
CILEX argues that the Mazur judgment has real-world, damaging consequences, not just for its members but for the broader legal ecosystem. (localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk)
Here are some of the key concerns:
- Professional and Employment Impact
According to CILEX, the ruling has already caused job losses and forced firms to rethink business models — changes that may come at a heavy cost, and which could hurt access to affordable legal services. (Legal Futures) - Court Delays and Complexity
The body warns of “significant disruption” to legal operations: judges are reportedly querying the status of certain litigators, and some firms are already facing satellite litigation over costs. (localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk) - Regulatory and Systemic Risk
While CILEX wasn’t a party in the original Mazur case, it says it must now be heard — because the judgment raises broader questions around who is authorised to litigate, regulatory clarity, and the future of legal-executive-led litigation. (Legal Futures)
CILEX is being represented in the appeal by heavyweight legal talent: Nick Bacon KC (4 New Square) along with Iain Miller and Stephen Nelson from Kingsley Napley, acting pro bono. (localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk)
On What Legal Grounds Will CILEX Base Its Appeal?
Some of the arguments that may be raised include:
- Agency and Delegation Principles: A King’s Counsel has suggested that CILEX could challenge Mazur on the basis of delegation — that an authorised person should be allowed to delegate litigation tasks, so long as they retain ultimate responsibility. (Legal Futures)
- Purposive Interpretation of the Legal Services Act: Supporters of the appeal argue that the High Court’s strict reading of the Act fails to reflect the reality of modern legal practice, where “non-solicitor” litigators often work under genuine supervision within large firms. (Guildford Chambers Barristers)
- Public Interest Considerations: CILEX will likely stress that limiting who can carry out litigation causes systemic harm — not just to its members, but also to clients who rely on more affordable or diverse litigation practitioners. (Legal Futures)
How Is CILEX Responding for Its Members?
In the midst of this uncertainty, CILEX has communicated directly with its community:
- The CEO, Jennifer Coupland, has asked the court to fast-track the appeal, citing the “serious concerns” and “real-world impact” of the ruling. (Legal Futures)
- CILEX’s FAQs for members make it clear: if you don’t have litigation practice rights, you must not conduct litigation. (CILEX)
- The organisation is also working with its regulator, CILEx Regulation (CRL), as well as with the Legal Services Board (LSB), to push for faster, more accessible routes to obtain litigation practice rights. (CILEX)
- CRL itself is preparing for a surge in applications: it has already submitted a formal application to the LSB for standalone litigation rights for CILEX Fellows. (Cilex Regulation)
- In recognition of the crisis, CILEX has made temporary changes: for example, proposing to cover an increase in practising certificate fees to protect its members. (CILEX)
Why This Appeal Really Matters — Beyond CILEX Members
This is not just a regulatory spat — it’s about how we define and safeguard the right to litigate in the UK legal profession.
- If CILEX wins, it could restore clarity for thousands of legal executives and paralegals who believed they were lawfully conducting litigation under supervision.
- It could also shape future legal careers: litigation rights are increasingly essential, and a favorable ruling may expand access for non-solicitor practitioners.
- From a business perspective, firms that rely on non-solicitor litigators stand to benefit: they may be able to revert to older staffing models, rather than being forced into costly reorganisation.
- More broadly, the appeal could prompt regulatory reforms — pushing the LSB, CILEx Regulation, and others to rethink how legal services are delivered, who is “authorised,” and what flexibility the system should allow.
Risks and Challenges for CILEX
That said, this appeal is not a guarantee of success. Key risks include:
- Appellate Deference: The Court of Appeal may be reluctant to overturn the High Court’s interpretation of statutory language, especially on such a deeply technical legal point.
- Burden of Proof: CILEX must show not just that the ruling is unfair — but that there is a strong legal basis for appeal.
- Practical Delay: Even if the appeal is granted, litigation in the Court of Appeal could take time. In the meantime, impacted members and firms remain in a precarious position.
- Regulatory Reform May Be Slow: While CILEX is pushing for change, systemic regulatory reform (e.g., changes to the Legal Services Act) could take years — or may not go as far as many would hope.
The Bottom Line
CILEX’s decision to seek permission to appeal the Mazur ruling is a high-stakes move — but likely a necessary one. The judgment has upended long-standing assumptions about who can conduct litigation in a regulated firm, and its effects are already reverberating across the legal profession.
If successful, the appeal could offer a path forward: restoring litigation rights for many legal executives, reshaping firm structures, and clarifying a crucial regulatory issue. If it fails, it may signal a more rigid interpretation of litigation conduct that will affect the careers of many CILEX professionals for years to come.
Whatever the outcome, this appeal marks a defining moment for the future of legal-executive practice, access to justice, and the evolving nature of litigation in England and Wales.