header-logo header-logo

19 November 2025
Issue: 8140 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

CILEX seeks to appeal ruling in Mazur

CILEX has applied for permission to appeal Mazur, the decision that legal executives and paralegals cannot conduct litigation even when supervised by a solicitor

While not party to the judgment in Mazur & another v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), CILEX is asking the Court of Appeal to exercise discretion to a person adversely affected by the outcome. It highlights that the case has led to delays in court as judges query the status of some lawyers, and through satellite litigation over costs, as well as causing firms to change their business models and leading to lawyers losing their jobs.

Iain Miller, partner at Kingsley Napley, who is advising CILEX pro bono, said: ‘Our extensive work in advising law firms over the last two months on the implications of the Mazur decision has brought home to us the severe impact this decision has had not only upon CILEX members but also the legal profession as a whole.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys further bolsters Private Equity expertise with the appointment of James Paterson

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons strengthens Rural Affairs team with senior appointment

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley adds insurance mergers and acquisitions partner to London office

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll