header-logo header-logo

CILEx Regulation prepares for post-Mazur rush

05 November 2025
Issue: 8138 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Regulatory , Profession
printer mail-detail
Legal executives can apply for standalone litigation practice rights, the Legal Services Board (LSB) has confirmed, in a move likely to offset some of the confusion caused by Mazur

The LSB announced last week it had approved with immediate effect a fast-tracked application from CILEx Regulation Limited (CRL) for the rights. Previously, litigation and advocacy rights had to be obtained concurrently. The LSB’s decision removes an obstacle from the application process for legal executives aiming to conduct litigation but who do not need to practise advocacy in their role.

Jonathan Rees, chair of CILEx Regulation, said: ‘We began work on this earlier this year, and our application was supported by over 95% of respondents to our consultation who welcomed the option to gain standalone litigation practice rights to enable further career progression.

‘The timing of this approval is particularly significant in the light of September’s Mazur judgment. We recognise the huge distress and uncertainty caused to many of our regulated community by the judgment. The introduction of standalone litigation practice rights will give all those affected the opportunity to practise litigation independently.

‘We recognise that demand for such rights may be high, and we have diverted and increased resources to cope with the expected rate of applications and streamlined and speeded up our assessment processes.’

In Mazur and another v Charles Russell Speechleys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), Mr Justice Sheldon held that a fee-earner who is not a qualified solicitor does not have the right to conduct litigation, even when under the supervision of a qualified solicitor.

The judgment raised concerns about the correct roles of paralegals and CILEX lawyers and the boundaries between supporting and conducting litigation. In a statement aiming to clarify the situation last month, the Solicitors Regulation Authority said the ‘distinction between conducting litigation and supporting litigation... will depend on the facts’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll