The Law Society of England and Wales has said it will work with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to provide clarity to practitioners on the impact of the the Mazur ruling on regulated professions, while the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) has reassured firms that it is ‘quite clear’ on the position of non-licensed individuals undertaking regulated practices under relevant supervision.
The High Court ruling that legal executives cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision by authorised firms, has created confusion amongst legal practitioners involved in regulated activities, including conveyancing and probate.
The issue has been complicated by advice previously given by the SRA that a law firm’s employees were permitted to undertake reserved legal activities, and guidance from the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) which until 2023 advised that its members employed in solicitor firms were authorised to conduct litigation.
CILEX has since clarified its position to Today’s Conveyancer, saying:
“We are aware that many of our members are concerned about the recent High Court ruling in Mazur and what it means for them.
“We would like to reassure members working in both conveyancing and probate at solicitors’ firms that schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 expressly provides exemptions that mean they can handle those reserved activities – rather than just assist with them – under the supervision and direction of authorised lawyers (i.e, those with practice rights). There is no such exemption for the conduct of litigation.”
The Law Society of England and Wales has also reassured its members about the wider impact of the Mazur ruling on regulated professions. When contacted by Today’s Conveyancer, a Law Society of England and Wales spokesperson responded:
“We understand that the ruling has raised some questions amongst members about their compliance with the Legal Services Act 2007.
“The case does not change the law but it does provide an important reminder of the limitations on the work non-qualified staff working within regulated organisations may undertake in the context of litigation.
“The court made clear that such staff cannot ‘conduct litigation.’
“It is vital that across the profession, it is understood that litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 that may only be conducted by authorised persons, even within regulated entities. This restriction serves to protect the public from harm.
“Clarification on the question of where the boundary is between conducting litigation and assisting an authorised person would be welcome since this is an area which the court has not had the opportunity to consider in detail.
“This has added significance given the number of unregulated entities now providing services to litigants in person in connection with litigation.
“Further clarity for practitioners is needed and we will be working with the SRA to achieve this so that firms can review their processes and adapt them as necessary.”
Meanwhile, uncertainty remains amongst practitioners, with many choosing to err on the side of caution following a warning from the High Court that firms allowing employees to conduct a reserved legal activity may be committing a criminal offence.
‘There is currently a lot of speculation about how the Mazur ruling will affect some legal practitioners, and until legal regulators and perhaps professional indemnity insurers offer guidance or words of wisdom, it would be sensible to remember that speculation only will remain’, said Rob Hailstone, CEO and founder of Bold Legal Group.
“The ruling, whilst not specifically addressing conveyancing, does possibly highlight the current position as far as conveyancing and probate are concerned, in that, supervision cannot turn an unauthorised practitioner into someone entitled to carry out reserved legal activities.”
In the meantime, Hailstone suggests delegating reserved activities to authorised licensed conveyancers, solicitors or licensed probate practitioners, particularly when employees work remotely. He advised:
“It would appear that the Mazur ruling is unlikely to stop unqualified consultant conveyancers working from home (as they can still assist with non-reserved tasks), but firms should consider that only authorised consultants can carry out reserved activities, that remote supervision must be demonstrably compliant and robust, and firms must ensure their particular consultant model will be able to withstand regulator and ultimately court scrutiny.”
However, Stephen Ward, director of strategy and external relations for The Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC), has offered reassurance for conveyancers and pointed out the regulations allow for work under supervision.
He commented:
“The CLC is quite clear that non-licensed individuals are able to undertake probate and conveyancing work in CLC-regulated practices under the supervision of qualified and regulated lawyers. The supervising lawyer, whether a CLC Licensed Conveyancer or Probate Practitioner or an Authorised Person licensed by another regulator, is responsible for the work of those they supervise. Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 supports this through exemptions in relation to the reserved activities of Reserved Instrument Activities (conveyancing) and probate to allow work under supervision.”
David Jabbari, CEO of conveyancing group MUVE, also urged those in doubt to consult regulations. ‘It is vital to study Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 to understand the exemptions to the strict rules on reserved activities, and this will reveal important differences between litigation and conveyancing’, he said.
“This ruling is correct and does not change the underlying law at all. It is pretty poor legal thinking to assume wider areas are affected.
“In the latter a broader exemption for employees of authorised persons exists. The ruling affirms the underlying law and simply reminds people of the limited exemptions in the case of litigation.”
This article was updated on 1 October to include a statement from CILEX.
6 responses
Mazur has sendt waves across the quiet surface of conveyancing routine
Mazur both in litigation and conveyancing, has opened a Pandora’s Box in terms of ‘reserved activities’.
The Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA)
Under the LSA an ‘authorised person’ is a legal professional or body formally licensed by an approved regulator to carry out these activities. An ‘exempt person’ is an individual or body that can legally perform certain reserved legal activities without needing formal authorisation, provided they meet specific conditions. Carrying out reserved activities without entitlement is a criminal offence.
Authorised person
An authorised person is someone who has met the qualification and regulatory requirements of one of the LSA’s approved regulators, such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Exempt person
An exempt person is typically a non-authorised individual who can lawfully perform a reserved legal activity under certain, limited circumstances, as specified in Schedule 3 of the LSA.
Authorised and exempt persons are entitled to perform certain property and conveyancing work.
Misunderstandings
The Manzur judgement states that individuals who are neither authorised nor exempt by the Legal Services Act 2007 may support others as they conduct litigation but may not “conduct litigation under supervision”. This last sentence is key to understanding the ratio of Mazur. The courts have struggled over the years to define ‘conduct’.
I suspect that some have overreacted to what was really decided by the learned judge. For example, paralegals can still do certain things which do not amount to ‘conduct’.
Conveyancing Factories and Mazur
Mazur has shone the spotlight of professional scrutiny on the key principles underpinning the exemptions enabling ‘exempt persons’ to ‘conduct’ conveyancing or be ‘supervised’ under the LSA without committing a criminal offence. However, how does a conveyancing factory ‘supervise’ as required by the Schedule 3 of the LSA? When conveyancing cases are so highly fragmented, in conveyancing factories who has actual ‘conduct’?
The above mentioned fragmentation raises important questions about responsibility and compliance. In environments where different individuals handle isolated stages of a transaction, it becomes challenging for the courts and regulators alike to pinpoint who truly assumes responsibility for the legal work and supervision required by law. There is a risk that the intended safeguards of supervision and accountability may be diluted, potentially undermining the regulatory protections under the LSA.
Although the relevance of this ruling to conveyancing is questionable, it is good that this issue is being brought to the forefront. I still speak to people I would say on a weekly basis who are gobsmacked when I tell them that you do not need to be legally qualified to be a conveyancer. There is a huge disparity between the understanding of the lay consumer and the reality of legal practice – the former is lagging years behind the latter. I think of consumers knew the truth they would lose confidence in the profession.
Following on from Mr. Hailstone’s comments – the rapid growth of the consultancy model has thrown caution to the wind. It is now not only possible for unqualified lawyers to conduct entire case loads with minimal actual supervision – but to employ people, and run entire teams of conveyancers below them, without meaningful supervision.
This all needs to be addressed.
This ruling is something the PLA have really got their teeth into, as something of a Cause celebre to attack unqualified conveyancers who dare to carry out a line of work that, in their view, they should not be doing. We know people without qualifications deeply offend them and they are rabidly opposed to their acting as conveyancers. Not sure how the comments of their members therefore sit within CQS requirements?
Lord forbid some of them are way better than actual Solicitors, how can that possibly be allowable?
I would love for Mr McWilliams to actually define the phrase “legally qualified”. Does it mean they have a piece of paper saying Solicitor or Licenced Conveyancer on it? Because believe me sir that does definitely not prove anyone capable of acting as a Conveyancer. Not even close. However someone who has built up experience over the years, is capable of showing a high level of duty of care to clients and pushes files through with the minimum of fuss, error free, that sounds like someone qualified to assist clients with the most important transaction of their lives? Not to mention someone with professionalism and integrity, which unfortunately a great deal of the propaganda misses of the PLA are sadly lacking in. Although I think we can let the SRA consider that, enough is enough.
These constant attacks on people in the profession are the reason why, although some conveyancers may sympathise with a scintilla of comments from you, on the whole nobody likes, and certainly does not feel represented by you.
Bold words indeed – but I suppose that is the benefit to being an Anon. What qualifies you to make the assessment “nobody likes…you?”. Seems rather personal if you ask me. I wish you a speedy recovery from whatever emotional pain I have apparently caused you, anon.
Nonsense. The PLA have unqualified conveyancers amongst their ranks.
Any evidence to support this bizarre claim that the PLA detest unqualified conveyancers? Or do just just have a large chip on your shoulder?
The way litigation has been practised over the last 18 years, since the Act was passed, has been accepted as being in accordance with the Law and it has not previously been seriously suggested that it was not as parliament intended. Perhaps this is because the Mazur ruling is a technical, nonsensical travesty, which should reversed immediately and all of those cases which have been dealt with upon the established understanding of the law should not be open to challenge in the meantime.