Legal Services Board brings regulators together to clarify litigation rules after Mazur ruling
The Legal Services Board (LSB) will convene a meeting of the frontline legal regulators next week to address the widespread uncertainty caused by the High Court’s ruling in Mazur, which has unsettled the profession’s understanding of who may conduct litigation.
The LSB confirmed to Legal Futures that it is using its convening powers to bring regulators together following the decision of Mr Justice Sheldon, which held that non-authorised employees of law firms can support authorised solicitors and other lawyers in conducting litigation, but cannot themselves conduct litigation under supervision.
An LSB spokesperson said the board recognised the need for clarity, given the cross-sector implications. “While the judgment does not change the law, we recognise that it has raised questions about how some in the profession have interpreted and implemented the reserved legal activity ‘conduct of litigation’ under the Legal Services Act in practice,” they said.
“The LSB’s role is to oversee the regulation of legal services by frontline regulators. In turn, it is for each regulator to provide direct guidance to those they authorise – regulated lawyers and legal professionals – in accordance with their scope of authorisation.
Embed from Getty Images
“We are in contact with the relevant regulators and representative bodies and will be meeting shortly with the purpose of establishing what action has been taken and is planned to ensure that effective advice and guidance is in place. It is of paramount importance that lawyers and legal professionals who are involved in the conduct of litigation receive clear and accurate information and comply with their scope of authorisation.”
The ruling’s implications have been felt most acutely among Chartered Legal Executives, many of whom regularly handle litigation work. Both CILEX and its regulatory arm, CILEx Regulation, have moved quickly to issue guidance and reassurance to members.
CILEx Regulation has published interim guidance explaining that any individual not authorised to conduct litigation must ensure that the formal conduct of proceedings remains the responsibility of an authorised person and that all key actions, such as signing claim forms or taking formal steps, are undertaken by that individual. It stressed, however, that this does not prevent staff from carrying out day-to-day delegated work under supervision.
In a blog post, CILEx Regulation chair Jonathan Rees acknowledged the “huge distress and uncertainty” the judgment had caused. He confirmed that the regulator has submitted an early application to the LSB seeking to amend its rules to allow eligible members to apply for standalone litigation practice rights, which are currently only available in combination with advocacy rights.
“We have already asked the LSB to treat this expeditiously and hope this option will be available later this year or early next,” Rees said. He added that the regulator would ensure sufficient capacity to process an expected increase in applications and would streamline procedures “consistent with our duty to maintain standards.”
In a joint statement, Sara Fowler and Jennifer Coupland, president and chief executive of CILEX, said they were “deeply concerned about the upset this is causing our members” and understood the frustration within the CILEX community. They noted that the ruling did not affect members involved in conveyancing or probate work, where statutory exemptions under the Legal Services Act 2007 already allow non-authorised persons to carry out reserved activities under supervision.
Meanwhile, Richard Miller, head of justice at the Law Society, wrote on LinkedIn that the judgment raised broader questions about compliance across other reserved activities. “All firms conducting reserved activities would be wise to review their processes to make sure they are compliant,” he advised.The upcoming LSB meeting will seek to coordinate regulatory responses and ensure consistent guidance across the profession as the sector continues to assess the practical impact of Mazur