header-logo header-logo

05 November 2025
Issue: 8138 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Regulatory , Profession
printer mail-detail

CILEx Regulation prepares for post-Mazur rush

Legal executives can apply for standalone litigation practice rights, the Legal Services Board (LSB) has confirmed, in a move likely to offset some of the confusion caused by Mazur

The LSB announced last week it had approved with immediate effect a fast-tracked application from CILEx Regulation Limited (CRL) for the rights. Previously, litigation and advocacy rights had to be obtained concurrently. The LSB’s decision removes an obstacle from the application process for legal executives aiming to conduct litigation but who do not need to practise advocacy in their role.

Jonathan Rees, chair of CILEx Regulation, said: ‘We began work on this earlier this year, and our application was supported by over 95% of respondents to our consultation who welcomed the option to gain standalone litigation practice rights to enable further career progression.

‘The timing of this approval is particularly significant in the light of September’s Mazur judgment. We recognise the huge distress and uncertainty caused to many of our regulated community by the judgment. The introduction of standalone litigation practice rights will give all those affected the opportunity to practise litigation independently.

‘We recognise that demand for such rights may be high, and we have diverted and increased resources to cope with the expected rate of applications and streamlined and speeded up our assessment processes.’

In Mazur and another v Charles Russell Speechleys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), Mr Justice Sheldon held that a fee-earner who is not a qualified solicitor does not have the right to conduct litigation, even when under the supervision of a qualified solicitor.

The judgment raised concerns about the correct roles of paralegals and CILEX lawyers and the boundaries between supporting and conducting litigation. In a statement aiming to clarify the situation last month, the Solicitors Regulation Authority said the ‘distinction between conducting litigation and supporting litigation... will depend on the facts’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
The legal profession’s claim to be a ‘guardian of fairness’ is under scrutiny after stark findings on gender imbalance and opaque progression. Writing in NLJ this week, Joshua Purser of No5 Barristers’ Chambers and Govindi Deerasinghe of Global 50/50 warn that leadership remains dominated by a narrow elite, with men holding 71% of top court roles
A legal challenge to police disclosure rules has failed, reinforcing a push for transparency in policing. In NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth examines a case where the Metropolitan Police required officers to declare membership of groups like the Freemasons
Bereavement leave is undergoing a quiet but profound transformation. Writing in NLJ this week, Robert Hargreaves of York St John University explains how the Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces a day-one right to leave for a wider range of losses, alongside new provisions for pregnancy loss and bereaved partners
Courts are beginning to grapple with whether AI-generated material is legally privileged—and the answers are mixed. In this week's issue of NLJ, Stacie Bourton, Tom Whittaker & Beata Kolodziej of Burges Salmon examine US rulings showing how easily privilege can be lost
New guidance seeks to bring order to the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Minesh Tanna and David Bridge of Simmons & Simmons set out a framework stressing ‘transparency’, ‘explainability’ and ‘reliability’
back-to-top-scroll