LSB approves new litigation rights as thousands of legal executives prepare to apply
The first chartered legal executive (CLE) with new standalone litigation practice rights could be authorised within six weeks, following a fast-tracked decision by the Legal Services Board (LSB). The move is expected to trigger more than 2,000 applications in the next 18 months, marking a major shift in how legal executives can practise in England and Wales.
The LSB approved an application from CILEx Regulation Ltd (CRL) to decouple litigation rights from advocacy rights, enabling legal executives to obtain the former independently. The regulator accelerated its review after the September Mazur ruling, which found that non-authorised persons cannot conduct litigation under supervision, a judgment that caused widespread uncertainty within the profession.
Although new entrants qualifying through the CILEX Professional Qualification automatically gain litigation rights, thousands of existing CLEs must now apply separately.
Embed from Getty Images
The LSB’s decision notice confirmed that 2,284 chartered legal executives and new applicants are likely to seek litigation practice rights within 18 months. It also noted that CRL has reduced the application assessment period from 11 weeks to six.
“CRL has explained that it expects the first application for uncoupled authorisation for the conduct of litigation to be ready for authorisation within six weeks of the LSB approval of this application,” the notice said.
There will be three categories of litigation rights — civil, family, and criminal — with separate authorisation routes for each. Those who can demonstrate two years of relevant experience in their chosen area will be eligible for a two-hour online assessment comprising a client interview, a written exercise, and a 90-minute multiple-choice exam.
Applicants without the required experience must complete a 24-week part-time course delivered by the University of Law (ULaw). A portfolio route will also be available for candidates to evidence experience directly, though CRL has indicated that the ULaw pathway will be preferred as it is easier to assess and maintain consistent standards.
At present, the ULaw course is not yet available for criminal litigation rights, though CRL confirmed discussions are underway to develop one.
To manage the surge in expected applications, CRL is expanding its authorisation team from one to four members, with capacity to double again if required. Additional temporary staff may be hired to handle peaks in demand.
The LSB acknowledged the potential for capacity challenges, but said CRL’s approach to risk and planning was proportionate.
“The LSB recognises that the application raises the risk of capacity restraints due to potentially increased numbers of applications,” the decision notice said. “However, we consider that CRL has given due consideration to this risk and that the benefits to the regulatory objectives of CRL’s proposal outweigh that risk.”
“We note that CRL is committed to ensuring that high quality and standards are maintained and has taken steps to enhance its ability to process applications in a timely manner.”
CRL chair Jonathan Rees said he was pleased by the LSB’s rapid approval and noted that more than 95% of respondents supported the proposal during pre-Mazur consultation.
“We recognise the huge distress and uncertainty caused to many of our regulated community by the judgment,” Rees said. “The introduction of standalone litigation practice rights will give all those affected the opportunity to practise litigation independently. This will help to increase diversity in the legal profession and provide consumers with increased choice.”
In a statement, CILEX, the representative body for legal executives, welcomed the decision.
“CILEX has been pushing for a swift decision on allowing Chartered Legal Executives to gain practice rights for litigation alone and we welcome the speed with which the LSB has moved,” it said. “It removes a considerable barrier to gaining practice rights for members wishing to conduct litigation who do not need to carry out advocacy in their roles… There is more to do in response to Mazur but this is a very positive step.”