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

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll