CILEX & Ors v Mazur & Ors.
Case Summary
On 31 March 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down its landmark judgment in CILEX & Ors v Mazur & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 369, overturning the High Court’s decision and providing crucial clarification on the meaning of “carrying on the conduct of litigation” under the Legal Services Act 2007 (the “2007 Act”). The ruling, delivered by the Chancellor of the High Court Sir Colin Birss, represents one of the most consequential decisions for legal services in recent history.
Background to the Case
The case originated from an unpaid fees dispute between Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (“CRS”) and their former clients, Mrs Julia Mazur and Mr Jerome Stuart. CRS instructed Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (“GBS”) to recover fees of over £50,000. Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart identified that Peter Middleton, who signed the Particulars of Claim as “Head of Commercial Litigation” at GBS, did not hold a practising certificate, having been suspended from practice as a solicitor in 2008.
The matter proceeded through several hearings. DDJ Graham Campbell initially stayed the proceedings, questioning whether Mr Middleton was unlawfully conducting litigation. HHJ Simpkiss subsequently lifted the stay, relying on a letter from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”) confirming that Mr Middleton had authority to conduct litigation under the supervision of Mr Ashall, a solicitor at GBS.
On appeal to the High Court, Sheldon J held that Mr Middleton was not entitled to conduct litigation under Mr Ashall’s supervision, distinguishing between “supporting” an authorised solicitor in conducting litigation (which was permitted) and “conducting litigation under supervision” (which was not). The judgment caused significant disruption across the legal sector, with the Legal Services Board noting that regulators had issued guidance at variance with the legal position adopted by the judge.
The Central Question
The fundamental question before the Court of Appeal was whether unauthorised persons working under the supervision of authorised individuals are “carrying on the conduct of litigation” and thereby committing a criminal offence under section 14 of the 2007 Act. Under section 14(1), it is an offence for a person to carry on a reserved legal activity (including the conduct of litigation) unless that person is entitled to do so, with conviction carrying a potential sentence of up to two years’ imprisonment.
The Court of Appeal’s Analysis
The Court approached the case as an exercise of statutory construction, applying the principles set out in R (O) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3. The judgment examined the historical context of delegation practices, the proper construction of the 2007 Act, and the relevant case law.
The Court’s Conclusions
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held as follows:
First, an unauthorised person can lawfully perform any tasks within the scope of the conduct of litigation for and on behalf of an authorised individual such as a solicitor or appropriately authorised CILEX member. The authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person and is therefore the person “carrying on the conduct of litigation”.
Second, the distinction drawn by the High Court between (a) supporting or assisting an authorised solicitor in conducting litigation, and (b) conducting litigation under supervision, was not correct. Both activities are lawful provided the authorised individual puts in place appropriate arrangements for supervision and delegation.
Third, the delegation of tasks requires proper management, supervision and control, the details of which are a matter for regulators. The degree of control and supervision will depend on the circumstances: in some cases, approval will be required before things are done, whilst in routine cases, it may be sufficient for the authorised individual to conduct regular meetings and sample work. The “universal prior approval” requirement contended for by the Law Society and SRA is not required by the 2007 Act.
Fourth, the authorised individual retains both formal responsibility for delegated tasks and the professional responsibilities identified in section 1(3) of the 2007 Act, including the duty to act with independence and integrity, maintain proper standards of work, act in the best interests of clients, and comply with duties to the court.
Fifth, the working model adopted by Law Centres—whereby authorised individuals delegate the conduct of litigation to unauthorised caseworkers while supervising their work and retaining ultimate responsibility—is governed by the same principles and is not contrary to the 2007 Act.
Activities Within and Outside the Conduct of Litigation
The Court acknowledged the difficulty of providing an exhaustive definition of which tasks fall within the “conduct of litigation”. However, it identified that the following activities are unlikely to constitute the conduct of litigation:
- Pre-litigation work
- Giving legal advice in connection with court proceedings
- Conducting correspondence with the opposing party
- Gathering evidence
- Instructing and liaising with experts and counsel
- Signing a statement of truth in respect of a statement of case
- Signing any document that the CPR permits to be signed by a legal representative
The definition of conduct of litigation in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2 to the 2007 Act covers the issuing of proceedings, the commencement, prosecution and defence of proceedings, and the performance of ancillary functions such as service of documents.
Sector Implications
The judgment has been welcomed by the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (“CILEX”), which described it as “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”.
CILEX noted that many of its professionals had been “profoundly impacted by the uncertainty created by the Mazur judgment” and expressed hope that they can now “move forward with their careers”. CILEX has approximately 18,000 members, including CILEX Lawyers, Chartered Legal Executives, paralegals and other legal professionals, who come from more diverse backgrounds than other parts of the legal profession.
Regulatory Reform
The judgment has exposed what CILEX and the Legal Services Consumer Panel have described as “regulatory failure”. CILEX has indicated it will “lobby the government to address some of the regulatory shortcomings of the Legal Services Act”.
The Legal Services Board’s interim report of 29 January 2026 had found that “the availability of clear and consistent advice and guidance on how the profession should comply with the requirements of the Act in relation to the conduct of litigation differed across parts of the regulated sector”.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal’s decision in CILEX & Ors v Mazur & Ors provides welcome clarity on the long-standing practice of delegation within legal services. It confirms that unauthorised persons may lawfully perform litigation tasks on behalf of authorised individuals, provided appropriate supervision and delegation arrangements are in place. The decision preserves the ability of law firms and law centres to operate efficiently while maintaining the professional standards and regulatory objectives of the 2007 Act.
A full copy of the judgment can be found on the Courts and Tribunals website on the following link:
Jags DeSouza
Contract Specialist (Comcast Cable International Legal)
SAL Committee Member