Coupland: Common-sense judgment
The Court of Appeal ruling in Mazur is “a victory for CILEX members but also for access to justice, the interests of consumers and the encouragement of a thriving, diverse and competitive legal sector”, the body has declared.
Chief executive Jennifer Coupland said: “CILEX is delighted that this common-sense judgment recognises our solutions, bringing much needed clarity to the conduct of litigation, and the role of authorised and unauthorised professionals.
“It means the profession can now operate effectively, maintaining high standards and consumer confidence whilst opening up legal services to alternative business models and providers.”
CILEX professionals “play a critical role in the justice system”, she said. “They are well qualified, highly skilled, hugely experienced and, given they are more likely to come from groups traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession, bring different perspectives to their work.
“Many have been profoundly impacted by the uncertainty created by the Mazur judgment and we hope that they are now able to move forward with their careers.
“We also hope that this judgment offers a moment of reset for legal services where we can work collaboratively with the rest of the sector to ensure a consistent and clear response to the judgment that supports ordinary people seeking justice.”
Ms Coupland said CILEX would now look to lobby the government to address “some of the regulatory shortcomings of the Legal Services Act”.
CILEX was represented pro bono by Nick Bacon KC, Helen Evans KC, Teen Jui Chow and Faye Metcalfe of 4 New Square, Iain Miller, Stephen Nelson and Phoebe Alexander at Kingsley Napley and Greg Cox of Simpson Millar.
Mr Miller, head of the legal services regulatory team at Kingsley Napley, described the outcome as “a victory for many of CILEX’s members who were impacted by the judgment. It is also of vital significance to the wider legal profession by providing guidance not only on the ability of authorised persons to delegate tasks to those they work with but also on the scope of conduct of litigation itself”.
Law Society vice-president Brett Dixon said: “Whilst the court did not accept all of the Law Society’s points, its judgment provides an outline framework for those involved in litigation to use in assessing whether supervision is adequate and lawful.
“The judgment confirms the continuing importance of supervision being in place which will require further regulatory guidance. We are updating our guidance and practice note to ensure it aligns with the ruling.”
A Solicitors Regulation Authority statement said: “We recognise the concern and confusion among practitioners and firms after the original judgment. We have been focused on providing support to them…
“The clarity the judgment provides will enable us to review our guidance and update it where necessary. We will do this as soon as possible. We will be working closely with other regulators and organisations to make sure there is consistency and clarity for everyone.”
The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) intervened in the hearing hailed the ruling given “the chaos which ensued” following the original decision “and the brutal impact it had on the wellbeing of our paralegal and legal executive members”.
“We will review the judgment in detail and seek to work closely with the regulators on any guidance they issue in order to ensure our members are fully supported,” a spokeswoman said.
In a joint statement, the original claimants, Julia Mazur and Jerome Stuart, and Blind Justice UK – a community interest company that supports litigants in person and promotes “evidence-led” court reform – said: “This case has never been about technicalities. It is about transparency, accountability, and who is really acting for the client. At its core, it is about whether clients truly know who is acting for them, and on what basis.”
They said the ruling did not clearly define what delegation meant in practice, what level of supervision was required, or where the boundaries lay – and could therefore lead to more satellite litigation.
“It also raises serious questions about how that approach sits alongside section 25 of the Solicitors Act 1974, which bars the recovery of costs for work done by an unqualified person acting as a solicitor.”
The trio said they were planning a national public panel series, entitled ‘Is access to justice a right or a privilege?”, to take place across UK universities.
CILEx Regulation welcomed “the clarity and reassurance” the ruling brought to affected CILEX lawyers.
“In our role as regulator, our priority continues to be supporting chartered legal executives to be able to continue delivering high-quality legal services with confidence.
“Since the original Mazur ruling, over 750 CILEX Fellows have successfully secured litigation practice rights. These rights enable them to litigate without the need for supervision.
“We will now be working with regulators and stakeholders to update guidance to reflect the full implications of the appeal judgment in due course.”
In other reaction, David Bailey-Vella, chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers, said: “This decision should calm the legal market. It also stresses the responsibility of authorised persons – such as Costs Lawyers – to supervise the conduct of litigation. We welcome that responsibility and believe we have a key role to play in ensuring law firms’ compliance.”
Legal regulation specialist Paul Bennett, a partner at Bennett Briegal who acted for the defendant before Mr Justice Sheldon, said: “By allowing the appeal, the court has reaffirmed the need for a regulatory framework that reflects the realities of contemporary legal practice.”
Stressing that he was speaking in a personal capacity, he went on: “It is the correction of a clear and obvious error by the High Court. That error caused confusion and chaos across the sector and damaged access to justice.
“I am delighted that a number of the arguments I deployed at first instance in the county court and in the High Court, when involved in the case, have now been belatedly endorsed by the Court of Appeal.
“The judgment underscores the importance of clear supervision structures and transparent regulatory responsibilities, while also recognising the role that properly overseen staff can play in supporting access to justice. It has been this way for centuries, and the Court of Appeal has delivered the only credible outcome.”
Paul Reason, managing director of R Costings, said: “Common sense has prevailed, and people throughout our industry can today breathe a sigh of relief.
“This is a major victory for law firms and staff across all levels of practice, who have been forced to live through months of disarray and faced huge uncertainty over their firm’s costs and financial positions.
“There is no doubt that careers, invaluable expertise, and indeed entire law firms, have been saved by this decision.
“The challenge now facing firms is to rebalance and rebuild going forward – it will take some time for the impact of today’s judgment to settle.”
Nick McDonnell, director and costs lawyer at Kain Knight, added: “By rejecting the rigid distinction between ‘assisting’ and ‘conducting’ litigation, the court has recognised the reality of how law firms and legal organisations operate on a daily basis…
“This is a pragmatic and welcome outcome. It avoids the risk of criminalising routine legal work, supports access to justice, and preserves the ability of firms to deploy skilled teams effectively. At the same time, it maintains appropriate safeguards by emphasising supervision, accountability, and professional standards.
Overall, the judgment strikes a sensible balance between regulatory protection and the practical needs of a modern, diverse legal profession.”
We will continue to update this article as more reactions come in.
Leave a Comment