Paul Bennett outlines developments in the recent Mazur appeal
At the end of February 2026, the Court of Appeal heard the appeal brought by the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) and others against the High Court’s decision in Mazur and another v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB).
The appeal concerns the central question of whether a non-authorised person may lawfully conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised person within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007.
The High Court judgment
Arguably the most significant legal regulation case of the last 50 years, the High Court’s judgment in September 2025 held that only authorised persons can conduct litigation, and that supervision or employment by an authorised firm does not entitle non‑authorised staff (such as paralegals or legal executives) to do so.
The decision significantly tightened the boundaries of permissible work for paralegals and other non‑authorised personnel, prompting the CILEX to lodge an appeal.
The appeal
The appeal bench reflected the professional and public interest in the case and comprised the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Birss and Lady Justice Andrews. Judgment was reserved.
In the appeal, the CILEX argued that the ruling was wrongly decided and has created uncertainty across the profession. Six interveners were heard, including the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the Law Society, the Legal Services Board, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Law Centres Network.
None of the parties expressed a fully aligned position with the other parties, emphasising the lack of clarity around the issue and the need for clear and authoritative guidance from the Court of Appeal.
The practical stakes are considerable and, as argued by the CILEX, have caused significant operational disruption for law firms and their staff as well as risks to both the functioning of legal teams and access to justice.
Historically, litigation firms have developed working models in which non-authorised staff carry out a substantial proportion of day-to-day procedural work under solicitor oversight. While the court considers the appeal, law firms should continue to review their supervision arrangements and ensure that only authorised persons conduct litigation in accordance with current Law Society and SRA guidance.
The Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, commented during the Court of Appeal proceeding that “We have found this case very interesting”, neatly summing up the profession’s perspective: a seemingly simple issue which, when examined, is more complex and challenging than it first appears.
Once the judgment is handed down, further updates will follow.
