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

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
Can a meticulously maintained spreadsheet turn a couple’s informal financial arrangements into legally enforceable obligations? 
back-to-top-scroll