Its review will examine how regulators ‘ensured that information on conducting litigation was accurate and reliable’, and ‘will help us all learn lessons’, an LSB spokesperson said.
The LSB met senior executives from the relevant regulators and representatives last week to discuss the need for ‘clear and accurate information’, collaboration across the relevant bodies and a consistent approach throughout the sector. ‘Meanwhile’, it has received an application from CILEX Regulation ‘to obtain standalone litigation practice rights… we are prioritising the application within our statutory process’, the spokesperson said.
Law Society president Mark Evans said: ‘While the judgment does not change the statutory requirements relating to authorised conduct of litigation as a reserved legal activity, it is important that there is clarity across all regulators and that consistent guidance is being provided to the professions.
‘This guidance needs to be available quickly, so our members can review their processes and adapt them as necessary.’
In Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), handed down last month, 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 prompted widespread concerns about the correct roles of paralegals and CILEX lawyers and the boundaries between supporting and conducting litigation. Legal executives who were conducting litigation under the supervision of qualified solicitors were suddenly told they could only support. NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School described the consequences of the judgment as ‘horrific for able, experienced people and their employers’, predicted the decision could inflate legal costs, and suggested the case could be leapfrogged to the Supreme Court.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=775f80cc_1)
