Law Society applies to intervene in Mazur appeal amid warnings of rising costs challenges
The Law Society is to apply to intervene in the Mazur appeal, as specialist lawyers warn that the High Court ruling is already triggering an increase in costs disputes and challenges to solicitors’ bills.
At last week’s meeting of the Law Society Council, chief executive Ian Jeffery confirmed that the organisation would seek permission to intervene in the appeal. Discussion of the move took place in the private session of the meeting. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has already confirmed that it will also apply to intervene again.
Both the Law Society and the SRA had previously been invited to intervene in the case before Mr Justice Sheldon. However, CILEX, which has now been granted permission by the Court of Appeal to bring the appeal, was not invited to participate at that earlier stage.
The Mazur decision has underscored the importance of litigation being conducted only by authorised individuals. Its impact is already being felt across the costs landscape, according to new survey findings published by the Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL).
Embed from Getty Images
In a survey of its members, three-quarters of respondents said the ruling would increase demand for authorised costs lawyers rather than unregulated costs draftspeople. Mazur is already being relied upon in challenges to solicitors’ bills where there is no clear evidence of supervision by an authorised person.
More than 7 in 10 costs lawyers surveyed said they expected to see an increase in such challenges as a result of the decision. Although the ruling does not directly address the rights of the audience, it appears to be influencing courtroom practice. Forty-three per cent of respondents said they expected judges to check the qualifications of those appearing before them more regularly.
The Mazur ruling has also sharpened interest in professional recognition. Two-thirds of ACL members said that obtaining a Royal Charter for the profession, which would give legal protection to the title of costs lawyer, had become more important since the decision. The survey attracted 72 responses, representing around one-sixth of the association’s membership.
Costs lawyers were also asked about what reforms they would like to see in the forthcoming Civil Justice Council (CJC) review of the costs provisions in the Solicitors Act 1974. The most common request was for the removal of different bill categorisations, followed closely by reform of the assessment process for solicitor-client bills, including alternative routes for smaller claims.
There was strong backing for enhanced consumer protection, such as clearer warnings to clients about the consequences of delivering a statute bill and information on their rights to assessment.
On technology, just over a third of respondents said they or their firms were already using artificial intelligence, with a further third actively exploring it. Current uses are largely limited to research and document summarising, with very limited uptake for drafting bills or pleadings.
The survey also found little improvement in budgeting discipline among solicitors. Sixty per cent of respondents said solicitors sometimes exceeded budgets, while a quarter said they always did. These figures have remained largely unchanged over several years.
ACL chair David Bailey-Vella said the ruling highlighted the value of authorised practice in costs work and said the profession was “eagerly awaiting” the Civil Justice Council’s report, which he described as long overdue.