Law firms and practitioners have responded to the Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn the decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys, which limited the extent to which legal executives and paralegals can conduct litigation.
Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment, CILEx Regulation said its priority would be to support those who had been affected by the ruling.
“We understand the considerable distress and uncertainty the September 2025 Mazur judgment caused for many chartered legal executives. We therefore welcome today’s Court of Appeal judgment and the clarity and reassurance it brings for those affected.
“In our role as regulator, our priority continues to be supporting chartered legal executives to be able to continue delivering high-quality legal services with confidence. Since the original Mazur ruling, over 750 CILEX Fellows have successfully secured litigation practice rights. These rights enable chartered legal executives to litigate without the need for supervision.
“We will now be working with regulators and stakeholders to update guidance to reflect the full implications of the appeal judgment in due course.”
Victoria Neale, a graduate member of CILEX at Pepperells Solicitors, started out as an office junior at 16 and worked her way through the ranks. She said:
“In my opinion, we had reached a point where solicitors and CILEX lawyers were considered equals but Mazur caused that perception to slip unnecessarily. 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.”
Wendy Wharton is a chartered legal executive litigator and advocate (Family Proceedings) and head of family at Milne Moser Solicitors. “I have been a chartered legal executive since 2005 and I take my role and my qualifications very seriously,” she said.
“The Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn Mazur was, and remains, a common sense approach. It was never meant to be about CILEX in the first place, but about a struck-off solicitor.
“This was a powerful reminder that these decisions affect people’s lives as much as they affect practice. The court’s confirmation that supervised delegation is lawful will come as a deep relief to firms and individuals. This will help those beginning their careers, as it supports junior team members in gaining practical experience while working on real disputes.”
Stacey Phoenix, director, solicitor and head of public law at Cygnet Law, said that while the judgment has delivered legal clarity, it has come with a “very real human cost”.
“For CILEX lawyers, this has not been an abstract legal debate. It has meant lost jobs, months of uncertainty, and professionals left questioning whether they were inadvertently committing criminal offences simply by doing the work they are trained and authorised to do. Trainees, in particular, have been left anxious and deterred at the very point the profession should be supporting and encouraging them.
“All of this has unfolded against the backdrop of an already fragile legal aid system, where practitioners continue to deliver access to justice under sustained financial pressure and reduced rates. The resilience of this part of the profession should not be mistaken for an ability to absorb shocks without consequence.
“Yes, the outcome brings clarity, and that clarity is welcome. But it does not undo the damage already done.
“The pressing question now is not whether the position is clearer, but how the profession and those who regulate and fund it intend to repair the impact. How do we rebuild confidence for CILEX lawyers? How do we reassure trainees that they have a secure and respected future? And how do we ensure that access to justice does not suffer further as a result?
“Clarity was necessary. But recovery must now be the priority.”
Paul Reason is managing director of legal firm R Costings. He said common sense has prevailed and those affected can breathe a sigh of relief. He added:
“This is a major victory for law firms and staff across all levels of practice, who have been forced to live through months of disarray and faced huge uncertainty over their firm’s costs and financial positions.
“There is no doubt that careers, invaluable expertise, and indeed entire law firms, have been saved by this decision.”
Daniel Tetsell, senior associate in the Dispute Resolution team at Knights, said the court has restored the accepted model.
“CILEX’s overarching submission (which is accepted by the Court of Appeal) is that ‘carrying on’ and ‘conduct of litigation” are separate and distinct. “Conduct” as a term in this context refers to the litigation tasks and can be delegated, whereas “carrying on” denotes direction, control, and responsibility, and cannot be delegated.
“The Court has therefore restored the previously accepted model: unauthorised staff are permitted to perform litigation tasks for and on behalf of an authorised individual where appropriate arrangements for supervision and delegation are in place, and the Legal Services Act does not require universal prior approval of every step. This is now, it seems, a matter for the regulators to provide further guidance on what that supervision should look like.
“The benefits are clear: work allocation can resume sensibly, with responsibility anchored to the authorised individual, while teams can continue to rely on paralegals, ‘legacy’ chartered legal executives, and trainees across a broader range of delegated tasks than the High Court permitted last year.”
In a joint statement, Birketts partners and Fellows of the Institute of Chartered Legal Executives Sam Froud (SIPPs team) and Juliet Harvey (Family team) said they were pleased by the judgment.
“This decision is of huge importance to all CILEX lawyers, many of whom I would count among the most skilled and hard-working lawyers and fee earners in the industry.
“It is clear from this decision that the intention of the Legal Services Act was never to disqualify unauthorised persons from conducting tasks amounting to litigation under supervision and I welcome the statement from CILEX CEO, Jennifer Coupland, confirming that CILEX will now turn its attention to lobbying for reform of the regulatory shortcomings contained within the LSA 2007.
“Now we have the judgment, all branches of the industry should now work together to achieve further reform as identified. As a profession we should be working together, rather than pulling apart, which is in the ultimate interests of the consumer.”
Birketts head of property litigation Richard Eaton said the Court of Appeal’s decision will be welcomed by employers across the legal sector.
“By confirming that non-authorised staff may lawfully carry out litigation tasks under the supervision of an authorised professional, the court has restored long‑established delegation models that many organisations have long relied upon on to operate efficiently,” he said.
“That said, the judgment should not be read as a green light for informal or poorly documented supervision arrangements. Employers remain responsible for ensuring that delegation is properly structured, that supervision is meaningful, and that staff are clear on the limits of their roles. From an HR perspective, this is a timely reminder to review job descriptions, supervision policies and training frameworks, particularly where regulatory compliance and reserved activities apply.”
Andrew Koffman, a partner and the head of litigation at north west law firm Bermans, said the Court of Appeal’s judgment is a great relief to the litigation legal executives and paralegals whose lives “were turned upside down by the High Court decision in September”.
“Many found their careers were suddenly under threat, and most felt demotivated, despite the reality that their work – when appropriately supervised – can be fundamental to the efficient provision of legal services.
“Regular clients of law firms can also breathe a sigh of relief, having long benefited from the cost and efficiency savings that arise where suitable work is undertaken by non‑solicitors.
“There remains some uncertainty as to the precise level of supervision required going forward, but it is hoped this will be clarified quickly. For today, however, this is very welcome news.”
John French, head of litigation at Band Hatton Button, said the impact of the ruling had caused confusion for firms.
“We had a perfectly robust system of delegation, supervision, training and mentoring for our unqualified staff with full accountability on the part of supervisors and partners but suddenly we had to take work away from capable colleagues, explain to clients that they would not be their main point of contact any longer and work in a far less efficient way. This was not because of any risk to clients or to the reputation of the profession but because there was suddenly a threat of regulatory sanctions and ultimately criminal liability where none had existed before.
“Thankfully, the Court of Appeal ruling means that we will be able to return to what has been universally accepted as a proper way of developing junior lawyers through supervised delegation and providing the service that clients want in a way that they would expect.”
Kate Stovold, partner at International Family Law Group, welcomed the clarity of the decision.
“It reinforces that non-authorised individuals can conduct litigation if an authorised lawyer provides proper supervision. In practice, many legal teams already work this way. Teams operate as collaborative units, with different roles contributing to the overall effectiveness of client care and case progression.
“The key point, however, is supervision. Firms must ensure that authorised practitioners retain genuine oversight, responsibility and control. When that is in place, delegation can enhance efficiency without compromising standards or client protection.”
