Leaked 2024 webinar told CILEX members they could conduct litigation, now contradicted by Mazur
Legal executives were explicitly told in a 2024 webinar that they could conduct litigation, advice which has since been contradicted by the High Court’s ruling in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys. The Gazette has seen the joint CILEX and CILEx Regulation (CRL) session, produced in July 2024 to address practising rights, and confirmed that the content has since been removed from public view.
In the leaked recording, a viewer asked about the long-term implications of a CILEX Fellow not obtaining litigation practice rights. CILEX membership manager Louise Tyrrell replied that there were no implications, saying members could continue under supervision as chartered legal executives. CRL’s practitioner authorisation and supervision manager, Siobhain O’Mahony, then added that Fellows were “authorised persons” under the Legal Services Act and therefore unaffected by not securing practice rights.
That position directly conflicts with Mazur, where Mr Justice Sheldon ruled that non-authorised individuals cannot conduct litigation—even under supervision—though they may assist authorised persons.
The Mazur judgment has sent shockwaves through the legal profession, particularly among CILEX members who have long conducted litigation tasks within firms under supervision. Firms across the country are now reviewing their practices, and many legal executives have been told their cases must be transferred into solicitors’ names.
Embed from Getty Images
One experienced practitioner told the Gazette: “Today, I received notification that all of my cases must be transferred into solicitors’ names because I can no longer conduct litigation. I don’t blame my employers—they’ve been supportive—but this is both disheartening and embarrassing.”
CILEX has acknowledged that a short clip from the webinar has circulated but said it did not reflect the full discussion or the detailed follow-up information provided afterwards. A spokesperson said the organisation is “acutely aware of the distress the Mazur judgment is causing our members” and that its priority “has always been to act in the best interests of the CILEX community”.
The spokesperson added that CILEX and CRL are working to gain clarity and will continue engaging with other regulators to find practical solutions. They maintain that CILEX has repeatedly encouraged members to obtain litigation practice rights since they became available in 2014.
The Mazur decision clarified that being employed or supervised by an authorised litigator does not confer the right to conduct litigation. Only those personally authorised or covered by specific statutory exemptions may perform reserved litigation activities. The ruling has prompted regulators and professional bodies to issue guidance, urging firms to ensure compliance with the Legal Services Act and to document decision-making around litigation roles.
Meanwhile, controversy has emerged over a Cardiff law firm’s attempt to capitalise on the confusion. Clodes Solicitors posted online that Mazur might mean some cases were handled by unauthorised individuals and invited clients to challenge their fees or consider claims. Critics accused the firm of scaremongering and exploiting uncertainty; the posts were later removed.
The fallout from Mazur continues to affect accreditation and panel work, with some charities reportedly suspending legal executives’ accreditation until they obtain practice rights. Many practitioners now face the prospect of paying additional fees to apply for rights from the same organisations that previously reassured them they did not need them—creating what some have described as an “impossible bind”, as applicants must demonstrate litigation experience they can no longer legally gain.
The SRA and CILEx Regulation have both stressed that the Mazur ruling does not change the law but clarifies its application. Both regulators are preparing updated guidance to support compliance and to ensure firms and individuals understand the limits of their authorisation when conducting litigation.