Judge says experience cannot override requirement for authorised litigation rights
A family court has barred a senior legal executive from continuing to act in private law children proceedings, in a ruling that highlights the continuing professional fallout from the landmark Mazur decision on the conduct of litigation.
In XX v GH, , the judge refused to allow a CILEX Fellow to continue representing a party after concluding that they did not have the necessary rights to conduct litigation.
The decision arose during ongoing children proceedings where the legal representative sought permission from the court to continue acting despite not holding litigation rights.
The judge held that the court had no basis to grant an exemption, stressing that the statutory framework governing reserved legal activities must be respected.
Conducting litigation is one of the reserved legal activities under the Legal Services Act 2007, meaning it can only be carried out by authorised individuals or those working under appropriate regulatory arrangements.
The issue has taken on greater significance following the High Court ruling in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, which clarified that individuals without authorisation cannot conduct litigation even if they are supervised by a solicitor.
That decision has prompted wider scrutiny of how litigation work is carried out in law firms and legal practices, particularly by paralegals and legal executives who do not hold formal rights of audience or litigation rights.
In the family proceedings, the CILEX Fellow argued that the court should permit them to continue acting in the case.
However, the judge concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify departing from the statutory framework.
The court noted that the legal executive was experienced and capable, but said the issue was not competence. Instead, the decisive factor was the legal requirement that only authorised individuals may conduct litigation.
The judge also observed that there were established regulatory pathways available for legal executives who wish to obtain litigation rights, making a case-specific exemption inappropriate.
Preventing the lawyer from continuing in the proceedings was therefore necessary to ensure that the case complied with the regulatory regime governing legal practice.
The ruling is one of a series of cases emerging in the wake of the Mazur decision that illustrate how courts are applying the principles set out in that judgment.
Lawyers and regulators have been closely watching the issue, as the clarification of litigation rights has implications for the way work is structured within law firms and legal teams.
For practitioners working in areas such as family law, where legal executives and paralegals frequently play significant roles in case preparation, the decision underlines the importance of ensuring that those conducting litigation hold the appropriate authorisation.
The judgment adds to the growing body of case law demonstrating the practical consequences of the Mazur ruling for everyday legal practice.