header-logo header-logo

CILEx Regulation prepares for post-Mazur rush

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

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Sports disputes practice launchedwith partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

Tax and succession planning offering expands with returning partner

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
back-to-top-scroll