In Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341, the High Court held non-authorised persons (including highly experienced paralegals and legal executives) cannot conduct litigation even if supervised by a solicitor or other authorised person. This threw many firms’ business models into doubt, and caused some firms acting in litigation to make applications to the court alleging the other side was using unauthorised persons.
Despite not being party to the original proceedings, CILEX applied for permission this month, relying on the Court of Appeal’s discretionary powers to permit an appeal brought by a person adversely affected by the outcome.
Granting permission, the court said the appeal ‘raises an important point of practice and its significance to the legal profession as a whole is a compelling reason for an appeal to be heard’.
CILEX chief executive Jennifer Coupland said: ‘It is great news that the Court of Appeal has acted quickly and recognised the need for a detailed examination of the issues raised by the Mazur ruling.
‘We have already seen the significant impact it is having, not only on our members but on law firms more widely. We are also concerned about the longer-term impact on access to justice, diversity in the legal profession and the efficient running of the legal system.
‘CILEX will now have the opportunity to present its argument that Mazur was wrongly decided. In addition, the uncertainties that have resulted from this judgment will be fully ventilated and determined through the appeal process.’
Earlier this month, the Legal Services Board smoothed the process for legal executives to obtain the required authorisation by approving a fast-track application from CILEx Regulation to allow legal executives to apply for standalone litigation practice rights.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=28793f10_1)
