Dixon: Not in members’ interests to appeal
The Law Society has decided against trying to appeal last month’s Court of Appeal ruling in Mazur, it has confirmed to Legal Futures.
Attention will now turn to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for its updated guidance in light of the judgment, which overturned Mr Justice Sheldon’s decision from last September and confirmed that non-authorised fee-earners can conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised lawyer.
The appeal judges rejected the Law Society’s interpretation of the Legal Services Act requirements but vice-president Brett Dixon said yesterday: “Having considered the judgment carefully, the Law Society will not be appealing the judgment, as it is not in the interests of our members to do so.”
The society’s own revised Mazur practice note, published last week, said the regulator was updating its guidance on effective supervision.
In an article on Legal Futures this week, Miller Insurance highlighted that “having adequate and meaningful supervision in place is not just a regulatory point, but crucial to both professional indemnity insurers and operational resilience”.
The finality of the case should also allow the Legal Services Board to complete the review it began last October into how regulators and representative bodies ensured that information on conducting litigation was accurate and reliable.
An interim report in January said some of the information provided to lawyers over the years was not clear enough, but at that stage it did not point fingers or announce any action.
Authorisation and supervision issues may continue, however, after the spotlight that Mazur threw on them. We reported earlier this month on a county court decision that the use of unqualified advocates by agencies has “the potential to undermine the integrity of the legal system”.
“To allow unqualifed persons to routinely represent parties in court if they cannot properly be said to be supervised and are not accountable to any regulated professional body is an unsafe practice and is not permitted by the Legal Services Act 2007,” said Deputy District Judge McKay in Cardiff.
