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

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll