header-logo header-logo

01 April 2026
Issue: 8156 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

Mazur no more as clarity returns

The controversial Mazur ruling, which caused widespread uncertainty about the role of non-solicitors in litigation work, has been overturned on appeal

In Mazur and another v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP and another (Chartered Institute of Legal Executives and others, intervening) [2026] EWCA Civ 369 this week, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Sir Colin Birss and Lady Justice Andrews held the judge was wrong to distinguish between supporting an authorised solicitor in conducting litigation and conducting litigation under the supervision of an authorised solicitor.

Accordingly, an unauthorised person can lawfully conduct litigation if they do so under the supervision of an authorised individual, under the Legal Services Act 2007.

Iain Miller, partner at Kingsley Napley, which advised CILEX pro bono, said: ‘As we argued in court, authorised persons have always been able to delegate tasks to those they work alongside, including CILEX members, paralegals and other members of the legal profession including trainee and foreign lawyers.

‘There will be many individuals and businesses, including those operating in the not-for-profit sector, who will be relieved by this outcome. It will also be a relief for many members of my profession, be they solicitors or their firms, who have had to grapple with the uncertainty and disruption which was caused by last year’s judgment.’

CILEX chief executive Jennifer Coupland said: ‘This is the most consequential judgment for legal services in recent history.

‘It means the profession can now operate effectively, maintaining high standards and consumer confidence while opening up legal services to alternative business models and providers.’

NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan, of City Law School, said: ‘I attended the first two days of the hearing.

‘The Master of the Rolls presided and was by far the most active member on the Bench, asking incisive questions at every turn. The excellent judgment was penned by Lord Justice Birss who kept a low profile but obviously grasped and mastered every nuance.

‘Nicholas Bacon KC deserves immense credit for getting this appeal underway out of time and on behalf of an entity CILEX which was not party to the decision. He acted pro bono too.’ Read more from Regan on p7 of this week’s issue.

David Bailey-Vella, chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers, said: ‘This decision should calm the legal market.’

Issue: 8156 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Regulatory
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll