Unpicking the Mazur muddle: Court of Appeal finds that unauthorised persons are entitled to provide reserved legal activities under supervision

31/03/26

The Court of Appeal handed down its widely anticipated judgment today following an accelerated appeal in the case of CILEX v Mazur and others.

The judgment follows a third appeal (District Judge to Circuit Judge, to High Court to Court of Appeal) in relation to the meaning of the words "carry on the conduct of litigation" in the Legal Services Act 2007 ("the Act"). 

At its core, the case concerns whether unauthorised persons can lawfully conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised person. The Judge below found that the Act allowed unauthorised persons to assist in the conduct of litigation but not to carry it on under supervision (carrying on under supervision brings with it a considerably lighter regime of oversight by the authorised person).

The Court of Appeal has come down decisively in favour of CILEX, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, which argued that there was a long history of carrying on the conduct of litigation under supervision. Unauthorised persons may undertake any of the steps that amount to the conduct of litigation and may do so acting for and on behalf of an authorised person, without express instructions or direction in an individual case.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that ultimate responsibility for the actions of the unauthorised person remains with the authorised person (usually a solicitor). The precise nature of the necessary supervision, that is required to make the unauthorised person's actions lawful, is a question for the frontline legal regulators.

Those frontline regulators had vigorously resisted this outcome. Both The Law Society and the Solicitors Regulation Authority argued that the actions of an unauthorised person must be specifically approved by an authorised person in order to be lawful. The Court has robustly rejected that position.

The judgment can be found here.