Coupland: We want to be heard
CILEX has applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Mazur judgment, it announced today.
Although not party to the original proceedings, CILEX said it was relying on the Court of Appeal’s discretion to permit an appeal to be brought by a person adversely affected by the outcome.
The action is not seeking to affect the outcome of the case in terms of the costs awarded by the court, which was what the decision ultimately was about; it is focused on matters of principle.
CILEX said in a statement that since Mr Justice Sheldon’s judgment was handed down on 16 September, it has had “serious concerns about its impact on the legal sector: on the public, on firms and on lawyers, including but not limited to its own members”.
There has been a backlash in particular from chartered legal executives who believed that, although they did not have the independent right to conduct litigation, they could do so under the supervision of an authorised person, like a solicitor.
This was believed to be the case beyond chartered legal executives too but Mazur said they could only support authorised people conducting litigation.
CILEX said the ruling had led to lawyers losing their jobs, as well as firms and other organisations “having to change their business models at considerable cost – which ultimately will be passed onto clients – and detriment to the competitiveness and speed of their services”.
In extreme cases, the body warned, it could even affect the viability of their businesses.
Other impacts of the ruling included delays in the courts caused both by judges querying the status of some lawyers and through satellite litigation over costs. There were also delays in the administration of justice, as various government portals “struggle with consequential updating”.
CILEX chief executive Jennifer Coupland said: “CILEX was not invited to be heard as part of the original proceedings but we would like to be heard now. We believe that the issues, uncertainties and real-world impacts triggered by the judgment need to be fully ventilated through this appeal process.”
A spokeswoman said CILEX has requested that the court expedite the application, given the impact on members and the sector more generally, and that it was working hard to build “a strong evidential picture” of the need to remedy the problems caused.
CILEX is being represented pro bono by Nick Bacon KC, head of 4 New Square – renowned for his costs work and professional disciplinary and regulatory practice – and Iain Miller, a partner, and Stephen Nelson, senior associate, of City law firm Kingsley Napley.
Mr Miller said: “Our extensive work in advising law firms over the last two months on the implications of the Mazur decision has brought home to us the severe impact this decision has had not only upon CILEX members but also the legal profession as a whole. We hope the Court of Appeal is able to fully reconsider the issues.”
Mr Miller is general editor of the authoritative textbook Cordery on Legal Services, while Mr Nelson was until earlier this year head of legal at the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Writing on Legal Futures last month, the pair argued that the ruling likely came about because the Legal Services Act 2007 inadvertently failed to codify what had been custom in the legal profession for a long time.
Mr Miller will also be on the panel for our live Mazur – Your questions answered webinar on 28 November. Please also take this short survey on the impact of Mazur at your firm.
