Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341, handed down in September, held only authorised persons (solicitors) can conduct litigation. This prompted widespread confusion among law firms over what exactly can and cannot be done by paralegals, CILEX members and other non-solicitors—many firms subsequently limited their role. The appeal, brought by CILEX (the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives), could have far-reaching implications for their business models.
‘The last case of profound importance which I attended was Denton v White back in 2014 [[2014] EWCA Civ 906],’ said Professor Dominic Regan, of City Law School.
‘This is a worthy competitor with a brilliant bench. Indeed, Dame Geraldine Andrews is a likely candidate for the post of Master of the Rolls. The decision, whichever way it goes, will have a profound impact on who can conduct litigation and therefore the costs of proceedings.’
CILEX is represented pro bono by Nick Bacon KC, of 4 New Square, and by law firms Kingsley Napley and Simpson Millar.
CILEX chief executive Jennifer Coupland expressed ‘serious concerns’ about the impact of Mazur on the legal sector.
‘The consequences for many of our members have been profound but the shock waves go far beyond CILEX, affecting the operation of law firms, local government and law centres. Further, given CILEX members are more likely to come from groups traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession, the judgment threatens diversity in the law as well as restricting competition and access to justice.
‘This hearing will be the first time that CILEX’s arguments relating to the conduct of litigation will be heard, alongside interventions from across the profession, including the Law Centres Network and Association of Personal Injury Lawyers.’
