Last September, the decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) that only authorised persons (solicitors) can conduct litigation, even under supervision, sparked widespread confusion about the role of legal executives and paralegals. The decision was overturned in March by the Court of Appeal, at [2026] EWCA Civ 369.
The LSB’s report, published this week, found regulators’ advice after the case varied in clarity and consistency and too little effort was made prior to the case to resolve inconsistencies across regulators. It called on regulators to provide ‘clear guidance on what adequate supervision looks like in routine and higher-risk cases’, share draft guidance with other regulators to promote consistency, collect data on the frequency and volume of reserved legal activities and take a more proactive approach to risks.
Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, accepted the findings and acknowledged CILEX had ‘not always got it right’.
However, Coupland expressed disappointment with aspects of the report: ‘Firstly, there is insufficient acknowledgement of the LSB’s own failings with regard to the oversight of the regulation of litigation.
‘There were multiple opportunities for the LSB to intervene or take action to provide the clarity that the sector clearly needed. Secondly, it is insensitive to the reality of the position following the High Court judgment in concluding that there was no evidence of detrimental impact, without properly acknowledging the human impact on the many lawyers and firms who experienced real negative consequences and significant stress.
‘Finally, it is disappointing that this first substantive LSB output since the publication of Richard Lloyd’s “Independent public bodies review of the LSB” report shows no substantially changed approach to the oversight of regulation going forward.’
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
