NEWS – “without comment”
CILEX wins Mazur appeal
Parliament never intended to disrupt a widespread practice of delegating work
JOSHUA ROZENBERG
Mar 31, 2026
CILEX, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, has won an important victory in the Court of Appeal. Three judges headed by the master of the rolls overturned a judgment delivered by the High Court last September in a case known as Mazur. As a result, people who are not qualified to carry out litigation themselves can resume doing so under proper supervision.
The leading judgment was delivered by Sir Colin Birss, chancellor of the High Court. Referring to the decision taken by Mr Justice Sheldon last year, Birss said: “I would allow the appeal, but I do not find the result that the judge reached surprising. The judge asked for assistance, but he did not receive as much help as could have been expected.”
Birss helpfully summed up his ruling in paragraphs 25 to 27 of a 45-page judgment.
This is what he said:
An unauthorised person can lawfully perform any tasks, which are within the scope of the conduct of litigation, for and on behalf of an authorised individual such as a solicitor or appropriately authorised CILEX member.
The authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person. The authorised individual is, therefore, the person carrying on the conduct of litigation. The unauthorised person is not carrying on the conduct of litigation and does not commit an offence.
The delegation of tasks by the authorised individual to the unauthorised person requires proper management supervision and control, the details of which are a matter for the regulators.
In some circumstances the degree of appropriate control and supervision will be high, with approval required before things are done. In other, for example routine, circumstances, a lower level of control and supervision will be required. In such cases, it may be sufficient for the authorised individual to conduct regular meetings with the unauthorised person and to sample their work.
The degree of prior approval contended for by the Law Society and Solicitors Regulation Authority is not required by the [Legal Services Act 2007]. In short, provided the authorised individual puts in place appropriate arrangements for supervision of and delegation to unauthorised persons, those persons may perform tasks that amount to the conduct of litigation for and on behalf of the authorised individual. The authorised individual retains the responsibility envisaged by the 2007 Act…
The result of this case means that the role of an unauthorised person in the context of the conduct of litigation is not limited merely to assisting or supporting an authorised individual, and the distinction drawn in the court below by the Law Society and Solicitors Regulation Authority, and adopted by the judge, between (a) supporting (or assisting) and (b) conducting litigation under supervision was not correct.
It is not unlawful for an unauthorised person to act for and on behalf of an authorised individual so as to conduct litigation under their supervision, provided the authorised individual puts in place appropriate arrangements for the supervision of and delegation to the unauthorised person.
Birss said the Legal Services Act “was not intended to and did not make a significant change” to previous arrangements. “Parliament must be taken to have understood that individual solicitors had, and were regulated in respect of, a widespread practice of delegating litigation work to unqualified individuals.”
Sir Geoffrey Vos and Lady Justice Andrews agreed.
Full Article: Joshua Rozenberg – rozenberg@substack.com
Posted by: Ian (D. Withers)
www.WAPI.org
Disclaimer: News items in W.A.P.I.’s “News Without Comment” section are republished articles from external sources. W.A.P.I. is not the originator of this content and does not endorse or verify the accuracy of the material. Complaints or requests for correction should be directed to the original publisher. W.A.P.I. will review any substantiated notice of defamation and, if appropriate, remove or update the content.