The Solicitors Regulation Authority has published a statement in response to the fall-out from the High Court Mazur ruling that legal executives cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision from regulated professionals.
Following claims that firms were pulling legal executives from casework – including conveyancing and wills and probate – amid concerns about the potential wider impact of the ruling, the Law Society of England and Wales said it understood the confusion amongst its members but pointed out the case did not change the law as it stands.
Stephen Ward, director of strategy and external relations for The Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC), was quick to reassure conveyancers that the ruling had no impact on the profession. He reiterated his comments during an exclusive interview for the Today’s Conveyancer podcast this week, stressing ‘Mazur doesn’t have any implications for the practice of conveyancing’ and ‘everybody should rest assured that the business model for conveyancing isn’t going to have to change overnight as a result of this ruling’.
After staying silent on the matter for several days, the SRA has now issued a statement clarifying the impact of the ruling:
“Our view is that the judgment in the recent case of Julia Mazur & Ora v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP doesn’t change the position in law.
“Sheldon J said the Legal Services Act (LSA) makes it clear that only regulated individuals can conduct litigation as it’s a reserved legal activity. Non-authorised individuals can support litigation – as they do in other areas – but only an authorised individual, such as a solicitor, should be conducting litigation.
“This is the position that we have reflected in our existing guidance on effective supervision, published in November 2022. In that guidance, we say:
‘People who are not themselves authorised to conduct litigation can only support authorised individuals to conduct litigation, rather than conducting litigation themselves under the supervision of an authorised individual.’
“There is a distinction between conducting litigation and supporting litigation, but the boundary between the two activities will depend on the facts. Being engaged (whether as an employee or other contractor) by an authorised person who is permitted to conduct reserved activities does not automatically confer a right to conduct litigation on an employee or contractor who is not authorised. They are permitted to support litigation under appropriate supervision, not to conduct it.
“Our guidance addresses many aspects to consider when assessing appropriate supervision arrangements. The onus is on firms to satisfy themselves that they are complying with the LSA, and only authorised individuals are conducting litigation. We recommend you should be recording your decision-making around the approach you are taking (see ‘Recording supervision arrangements’ in the guidance).”
Any firms still worried about potential implications of the ruling should contact the Professional Ethics helpline for support, the SRA said.
4 responses
However, it has reopened the debate on the legal meanings of ‘conduct’ ‘authorised’ and ‘supervision’ respectively.
Supervision in particular, deserves the urgent attention of all regulators. Too many hybrid entities have emerged in recent years, for example ‘conveyancing factories’, offering conveyancing as a commoditised service. Stories abound of chains becoming paralysed because one part of a chain simply does not know what they are doing.
As a judge once said it is all very well putting the law in a nutshell – it’s keeping it there!
For goodness sake change the record. Not once have I seen the PLA make reference to work from home consultants where supervision, or the lack of, is far more relevant. Of course this has nothing to do with the fact the vice-chair is a consultant?
Nobody trusts people without the courage of their convictions. The silence is noted and it’s deafening.
Anon
Do you not see the irony of what you have posted?
Have the courage of your convictions and tell us who you.
You can’t tarnish all “WFH consultants” with the same brush. It is not our fault that some of the companies that operate this model will take anyone with x number of years qualifications who supposedly should be able to work on their own. You should be questioning the 2 giants that take on these residential conveyancers with little to no contact with their Head Office.