CILEX wins appeal against Mazur ruling
The Court of Appeal has today (31 March) allowed the appeal brought by CILEX (the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) against the High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys, restoring a more permissive approach to the delegation of litigation tasks within authorised firms.
The central issue concerned the proper construction of the “conduct of litigation” under the Legal Services Act 2007 and, in particular, whether non-authorised persons (including CILEX members and paralegals) may undertake such work under supervision. The High Court had adopted a restrictive interpretation, holding that litigation could only be conducted by authorised persons, with others – including legal executives regulated by CILEX – limited to very limited ancillary assistance.
In allowing the appeal, the Court rejected that binary approach. It accepted CILEX’s submission that the statutory scheme distinguishes between:
- the ultimate responsibility for the conduct of litigation, which remains non-delegable and vested in an authorised person; and
- the performance of constituent tasks, which may lawfully be carried out by appropriately supervised, non-authorised staff.
This reflects longstanding professional practice and avoids undue disruption to modern litigation models.
The Court emphasised that the Legal Services Act 2007 does not prohibit delegation of functions but instead regulates who bears responsibility. Proper supervision and accountability are the critical safeguards protecting clients while enabling the efficient delivery of legal services. In practice, tasks which constitute “conduct of litigation” fall to regulators to determine, although the Court noted that the following acts were unlikely to fall within the definition:
- pre-litigation work
- giving legal advice in connection with court proceedings
- conducting correspondence with the opposing party on behalf of clients
- gathering evidence
- instructing and liaising with experts and counsel
- signing a statement of truth in respect of a statement of case; and
- signing any other document that the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) permits to be signed by a legal representative as per CPR Part 2.3.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court’s interpretation imposed an unduly narrow reading of the statute, with adverse implications for access to justice and the operation of legal teams. The appeal was accordingly upheld with clear guidance provided on the permissible scope of delegation in litigation practice.
The decision will come as a relief to both legal executives and firms who employ legal executives in broadly restating the position held prior to the High Court judgment in Mazur in October 2025. Initial comments from the Law Society suggest it will not be looking to appeal the judgment, but rather that it will be updating its guidance to align with the ruling.