One Way or Another: What CILEX and the SRA Did Next

The High Court’s decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (Mazur) sent shock waves through the profession. By holding that the “conduct of litigation” is a reserved legal activity that may only be carried out by individually authorised persons, and not just under the supervision of suitably authorised individuals, the court disrupted decades of apparently accepted practice in law firms. In particularly, it affected the routine involvement of supervised non-solicitor staff in litigation work.

Whilst Mazur remains a hot topic in the litigation world, two recent developments are particularly significant.

First, CILEX has been granted permission to appeal the Mazur ruling, allowing the issue to be tested.

Second, in response to the uncertainty created by Mazur, CILEX Regulation has introduced standalone litigation practice rights for Chartered Legal Executives through a fast-tracked process approved by the Legal Services Board, effectively decoupling these rights from advocacy rights which previously had to be obtained in tandem.

Grounds of appeal: how CILEX is challenging Mazur

Although CILEX was not a party to the original proceedings, its members were heavily affected. It sought, and was granted, permission to appeal the ruling.

Its grounds focus on the following:

• Misinterpretation of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007) – CILEX argues that the High Court applied a strictly textual interpretation, ignoring regulatory history and parliamentary intent.
• Failure to reflect longstanding, lawful professional practice – For decades, supervised litigation work has been carried out by non-authorised staff without regulatory intervention. CILEX contends this practice aligns with the intended operation of the LSA.
• Excessive and unintended consequences – The ruling risks invalidating routine supervisory arrangements and disrupting law-firm structures, as well as increasing litigation costs and jeopardising legal executives’ and paralegals’ career progression.

On 25 November 2025, the Court of Appeal granted permission for CILEX to appeal. The court’s reasoning has not yet been published in a formal judgment. However, according to CILEX’s announcement, the Court determined that the appeal raises an “important point of practice” and the issue’s significance to the legal profession constitutes a “compelling reason” for it to be heard. Therefore, the Court accepted that CILEX, though a non-party, had sufficient interest to justify its involvement due to the ruling’s wide impacts.

CILEX’s fast-tracked litigation practice rights

While the Mazur appeal progresses, CILEX and CILEX Regulation (CRL) have moved swiftly to mitigate sector-wide disruption by enabling Chartered Legal Executives to obtain standalone litigation practice rights.

On 3 November 2025, the Legal Services Board approved CRL’s application to introduce new standalone rights in civil litigation, family litigation and criminal litigation, with immediate effect. Any CILEX Fellow may now apply for litigation rights, effectively becoming an authorised person.

This means that firms can lawfully deploy authorised CILEX litigators to conduct litigation autonomously once they have obtained the new standalone litigation rights. Importantly, workflows affected by Mazur can stabilise for CILEX Fellows who obtain rights. However, paralegals and trainees remain affected by Mazur until the appeal is heard, or regulators clarify alternative authorisation pathways.

The SRA’s position

The SRA issued clarification to firms on what constitutes the reserved activity of “conducting litigation” in October 2025. The guidance¹ acknowledged sector-wide uncertainty and concerns that many firms may have inadvertently operated outside the statutory position.

Importantly, the SRA recently stated that if firms believe they have been operating incorrectly in the past, they may self-report². While emphasising that “each case turns on its own facts”, the SRA indicated that it would treat genuine mistakes arising from a misunderstanding of the law sympathetically – particularly where such conduct occurred before the publication of its updated guidance in October 2025. It did, however, warn that firms who have not addressed the implications of Mazur or their guidelines can “expect [the SRA] to use appropriate investigative and enforcement powers to identify and address this misconduct”.

Key takeaways

The legal landscape now sits at an unusual intersection. If the Mazur appeal succeeds, the interpretation of “conduct of litigation” may be broadened and supervision may again permit non-authorised staff to undertake certain tasks.

If the appeal fails, Mazur becomes established law and only individually authorised persons (solicitors, barristers with litigation rights, CILEX litigators) may conduct litigation. This will result in firms requiring lasting structural changes and, in some cases, wholesale amendments to their business models. In this fast-changing area, we can only advise to watch this space very carefully indeed.

If you are unsure how Mazur may affect you or your business, or you would like to discuss any of the points raised in this article, please contact Claire Revell and Dilara Devin.

¹SRA | Effective supervision | Solicitors Regulation Authority

²SRA | Mazur and conducting litigation | Solicitors Regulation Authority