CILEX regulation races to restore litigation rights as Mazur judgment sparks legal confusion
13 October 2025 — The Mazur judgment has triggered upheaval across the legal profession, forcing CILEx Regulation to make an urgent bid to the Legal Services Board (LSB) to secure standalone litigation practice rights for legal executives. The move follows mounting concern that last month’s High Court ruling has stripped many professionals of the ability to conduct litigation.
CILEx Regulation confirmed it has submitted its application to the LSB, which has prioritised the issue within its statutory process. The urgency reflects widespread disruption after the Mazur decision, which clarified that unauthorised lawyers cannot conduct litigation under supervision.
The ruling has left firms of all sizes reassigning cases and limiting the work of legal executives who had long assumed they could carry out litigation tasks under appropriate oversight.
The LSB met with frontline regulators last week to discuss the consequences of the judgment and potential solutions. The oversight body emphasised that Mazur does not alter the Legal Services Act but has prompted a reassessment of how the Act is interpreted and applied in relation to the reserved legal activity of conducting litigation.
Embed from Getty Images
CILEx Regulation’s submission marks the first formal regulatory response to the crisis. At present, the body grants litigation practice rights only to applicants who simultaneously apply for advocacy rights. Under its new proposal, CILEx Regulation seeks to decouple these rights within its education standards, allowing candidates to apply for each individually while keeping the same authorisation routes and requirements.
The change would reflect the realities of practice, particularly within local authorities and firms where advocacy services are rarely provided in-house. When such services are required, most employers instruct solicitors or barristers on an ad-hoc basis.
The LSB could make a decision within 28 days on whether to approve the application. At the same time, it has announced a review into how approved regulators and professional bodies have provided information on litigation rights and whether their communications were accurate and reliable.
CILEx has faced criticism for earlier messaging that appeared to suggest its members could conduct litigation under supervision. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) was also drawn into the controversy when it emerged that it had initially sent incorrect guidance to the firm involved in Mazur, implying that unauthorised individuals could perform litigation work under supervision.
Law Society president Mark Evans said consistency was vital in the wake of the ruling. “While the judgment does not change the statutory requirements relating to authorised conduct of litigation as a reserved legal activity, it is important that there is clarity across all regulators and that consistent guidance is being provided to the professions,” he said. “This guidance needs to be available quickly so our members can review their processes and adapt as necessary.”
Meanwhile, the legal executive community is rallying. A petition calling for the Legal Services Act to be amended to grant CILEX members explicit litigation rights has gathered more than 1,300 signatures since its launch late last week.
Petition organiser Raj Patel, an associate solicitor at Family Law Partners in Brighton, said the impact of the judgment had been immediate. “CILEX members are trained, skilled legal professionals who contribute significantly to the legal industry in England and Wales,” he said. “Their qualifications and expertise are often on par with more traditionally recognised roles such as solicitors and barristers. The restrictions on conducting litigation undermine their potential to offer comprehensive legal services.”
Caroline Morris, managing director of Serious Injury Law, part of Fletchers Group, wrote on LinkedIn that the Mazur ruling had caused understandable upset but should not diminish confidence. “I work at a firm which has never once made me feel less qualified or capable because I was a FILEX,” she said. “To all those lawyers affected, yes, we will need to adapt, but we prevail, and we will still be able to achieve the amazing things that we do for our clients.”
The LSB’s forthcoming decision will determine whether CILEx Regulation’s proposal can resolve the turmoil unleashed by Mazur—and whether the profession can regain its footing after one of the most disruptive rulings in recent memory.