header-logo header-logo

11 March 2026
Issue: 8153 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Regulatory , Family
printer mail-detail

No Mazur exception in family court

A highly experienced chartered legal executive has been prevented from representing her client in financial remedies proceedings, in a case that highlights the continued fallout from Mazur

In Re XX v GH (Legal Services Act 2007 Exemption) [2026] EWFC 51 (B) in February, Judge Farquhar refused to grant a Legal Services Act 2007 exemption to allow Lisa Burton-Durham, group director of Family Law Partners, to conduct litigation. This was due to Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341, which held non-authorised individuals can assist but not conduct litigation.

Judge Farquhar said Burton-Durham—a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) since 2006—was ‘a very experienced practitioner dealing with financial remedy cases and she regularly instructs both junior and senior counsel and has been involved in highly complex cases’.

Counsel for XX argued for exemption to be granted as ‘a fair, just and appropriate way of ensuring that the applicant can continue to be represented by her chosen lawyer, without added delay or cost’, because her legal experience provided sufficient safeguards, and in keeping with the Family Procedure Rules’ overriding objective of saving time and expense.

However, Judge Farquhar held that, while he was ‘entirely satisfied’ Burton-Durham was ‘fully capable to conduct litigation’, he must give ‘due deference’ to the will of Parliament.

Mazur has made it clear as to how the will of Parliament is to be interpreted. Ms Burton-Durham, in keeping with a large number of other Chartered Legal Executives, is not authorised to conduct litigation. There is now a route by which Ms Burton-Durham and others in her position can be granted such authorisation.

‘I am satisfied that a refusal to grant an exemption in this case will cause difficulties for Ms Burton-Durham and her client but that cannot be the test to apply as otherwise the exemption would be granted in every such case.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll