Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP: The impact for CILEX Fellows

Last week I was contacted by a CILEX Fellow who was concerned that she could not hold a case load in her name without having a litigation certificate. After discussing the matter at length, we both scowered the Legal Services Act 2007.

The following week, the case of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) was handed down, making it entirely clear for that CILEX Fellow about her position was as a fee earner.

The implications is that CILEX Fellows without practice rights can become partners in law firms, Judges and even charge Grade A for work, but can only assist those who are authorised to conduct litigation.

The question is then, what can CILEX Fellow do going forward?

The Mazur case

The appellants (Mazur & Stuart) we said to have owed unpaid legal fees and Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (GBS) sued them for debt on behalf of CRS LLP. Peter Middleton, GBS’s Head of Commercial Litigation, drafted and signed the claim form, but was not an authorised person with a practising certificate allowing him to conduct litigation. 

The appellants claimed Mr Middleton was unlawfully conducting litigation, a “reserved legal activity” under the Legal Services Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”). A county court judge initially stayed the case; HHJ Simpkiss later lifted the stay, accepting that the matter eventually made it to the High Court upon appeal. 

The appellants argued that Section 21(3) LSA did not allow employees of authorised firms to conduct litigation, even under supervision. They argued that only authorised or exempt persons can do this and the work that Mr Middleton’s undertook (such as drafting, filing, serving documents, correspondence, and issuing proceedings) went beyond assisting and was in fact conducting litigation.

It was argued by the respondents that it was accepted practice for Mr Middleton to act under supervision. They argued that, according to Section 21(3), employees of authorised firms were allowed to carry out reserved activities. They relied on the basis that SRA had confirmed that Mr Middleton’s role was permitted under supervision.

The Law Society and the SRA, as interveners, made submissions that employees can support authorised solicitors in litigation but cannot conduct litigation themselves unless they are specifically authorised or exempt. They said that Section 21(3) pertained to regulatory authority rather than individual authorisation, reinforcing the principle that only qualified, authorised persons should conduct litigation to ensure public protection.

Sheldon J agreed with the appellants, Law Society and SRA’s interpretation.

What does this mean for those without the right to conduct litigation?

The Mazur Judgment removes any ambiguity that may have been taken from the 2007 Act, you must either be authorised to conduct litigation or be subject to an exemption (which either an Act grants them the power to conduct litigation or they were granted permission by a Court).

Essentially, this means that no steps should be carried out by fee earners who don’t have the right to conduct litigation that amounts to conducting litigation. This would include, but not be limited to, the following:-

• signing/sending legal documents
• making decisions with respect to the litigation

It probably did not assist that the SRA were giving guidance that supported the proposition that a fee earner, when under the appropriate supervision of an authorised individual, would be in keeping with the 2007 Act.

It essentially means that any work that non-authorised fee earners undertake must be exclusively be assisting the person authorised to conduct litigation. It would make sense that the person could give clear instructions to the non-authorised fee earner to draft a document. However, that document must be compeltely scrutinised by the authorised person and that person must put their name to the document so the speak and take sole ownership.

What does it mean for CILEX Fellows without practice rights?

It is now evidently clear that CILEX Fellows who do not hold independent practice rights are not permitted to conduct litigation, even if they are appropriately supervised.

There is a striking juxtaposition for them; CILEX Fellows without practice rights are prohibited from conducting litigation, yet they may sit as judges, become partners in law firms, and charge at Grade A fee-earner rates.

Without litigation practice rights, for all intents and purposes, a CILEX Fellow can support litigation work under the supervision of an authorised person, but they cannot themselves take on the role of conducting proceedings.

The vast majority of CILEX Fellows are legacy Fellows, meaning that when they qualified, they were only granted the rights of a commissioner of oaths. The news CILEX Professional Qualification (CPQ) process will now ensure that those in litigation qualify with practice rights.

Otherwise, they must apply for practice rights. Currently, Fellows can only get litigation rights through CILEX Regulation by seeking practice rights. These rights allow them to handle legal cases, be recorded as the legal representative in court, and represent clients in certain courts depending on their rights. There are three main types of litigation rights: civil, criminal, and family. To get these rights, CILEX Fellows must demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and experience through portfolios or assessments. Once approved, they become authorised litigators with the same standing as solicitors for those rights.

The current issue for many is that the advocacy course is expensive and a deterrent for many and due to the limited applicants, the advocacy course is not running that often. CILEX Regulation has just finished a consultation on litigation-only practice rights. This is something that may take some time as it must be sought from the Legal Services Board. Given that it took some time for the higher rights of audience to be authorised, it would not surprise me if it takes another 6-12 months.

….and in the meantime?

It is difficult to say what firms should do. Many firms (and I know many) where none of the documents are signed by the fee earner, decisions are deferred to a supervisor, and whilst the fee earner may be a point of contact, they do not necessarily run the case.

Strictly speaking, your law firm will no doubt take steps to ensure your work is compliant with the 2007 Act. However, I would strongly recommend that practice rights are obtained, and this will most certainly now be a suitable justification for your law firm to invest what is a relatively small sum to allow you to conduct litigation. Click here for a slightly updated version of the Pros and Cons of apply for CILEX practice rights.

Information 

AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026. 

From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.