The controversial case of Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys, which challenged assumptions about the extent to which legal executives and paralegals can conduct litigation, will be heard in the Court of Appeal in London over three days this week.
A three-judge panel consisting of the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Vice Chancellor, Sir Colin Birss, and Lady Justice Andrews will convene today (23 February) to hear an appeal by the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) against the judgment, which was handed down in September last year.
The ruling by Mr Justice Sheldon held that non-authorised individuals, such as legal executives or senior paralegals, cannot conduct litigation simply by virtue of being employees of an authorised firm. Both the firm and the individual carrying out such activity must be authorised, the judge said, although a team member can provide extensive support to an authorised colleague.
The judgment was criticised by large segments of the profession, including CILEX, firms with a leveraged business model and law centres, with commentators warning of significant ramifications for the litigation market and cost implications for clients.
It also prompted a regulatory review by the Legal Services Board (LSB) while the Law Society, which backed the ruling, issued a practice note to clarify “grey areas”.
CILEX is being represented pro bono by Nick Bacon KC, head of 4 New Square, Helen Evans KC, Teen Jui Chow and Faye Metcalfe, of 4 New Square. They are being instructed, also in a pro bono capacity, by Iain Miller, Stephen Nelson and Phoebe Alexander of City law firm Kingsley Napley and Greg Cox, managing partner of Simpson Millar.
CILEX chief executive Jennifer Coupland said the ruling had had a “profound” impact on many of its members, restricted competition and access to justice, and threatened diversity, given that CILEX members are “more likely to come from groups traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession”.
She added: “We are hoping for a swift decision that provides certainty and clarity for both our members and the wider profession…“
Miller said: “Our extensive work advising law firms on the implications of the Mazur decision has brought home to us the severe impact this decision has had not only on CILEX members but also on the legal profession as a whole. We hope the Court of Appeal is able to fully reconsider the issues.”
The Law Society, for its part, is set to reiterate its support for the High Court judgment. Vice president Brett Dixon said: “Litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 that may only be carried out by authorised persons, even within regulated entities.
“However, non-authorised staff can provide extensive assistance to an authorised person who is conducting litigation. Tasks can be delegated so long as the authorised person maintains overall responsibility for each matter, the work is actively supervised in line with wider regulatory obligations, and the key decisions and formal steps in the proceedings are referred to the authorised person, who exercises their professional judgement.”
The Law Society is being represented by Fountain Court Chambers’ Richard Coleman KC and Marianne Butler MBE, as instructed by John Gould of Russell Cooke, with partner Michael Stacey and associate Megan Knowles.
Other parties include the original parties, the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, which has instructed Capital Law; the LSB, represented by Hogan Lovells; the Law Centre Network, represented pro bono by A&O Shearman; and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, represented by Irwin Mitchell. All have instructed counsel.
Parties can apply to view the livestream in accordance with a practice direction issued on Friday.
Email your news and story ideas to: [email protected]
