Legal Futures reported last week that the transfer of delegated regulation by CILEX from CILEX Regulation to the SRA has ceased.
According to the Legal Futures article, it was the SRA that ended talks. Contained within the SRA’s business plan was confirmation that it will not carry out further work on redelegating the regulation of CILEX professionals, citing the need to focus on its existing remit. It was also stated that SRA chief executive, Sarah Rapson, did not rule out the possibility of returning to this. in the future.
CILEX Regulation and CILEX had a very public civil war on the topic, and no doubt, Mazur probably re-aligned their priorities. For those who don’t know, CILEX delegate their regulation to CILEX Regulation, just as the Law Society to the SRA and the Bar Council to the BSB.
CILEX had sought to redelegate regulation of its members to the SRA, primarily to address what it saw as duplication and inefficiency in regulating a profession in which most members already work within SRA‑regulated firms. It argued that a single regulator would simplify the system for consumers and employers, improve clarity about accountability and standards, and deliver greater consistency across the legal services market. They initially aimed to rebrand their regulated lawyers as ‘Chartered Lawyers,’ but this was quickly changed to ‘Chartered CILEX Lawyers’ due to the backlash.
Before talks ended, the SRA publicly supported the proposal, stating that regulating CILEX members had the potential to deliver clear public‑interest and consumer benefits by simplifying what it described as a fragmented regulatory landscape. It repeatedly stressed that the change would not affect the identity, standards, or regulation of solicitors, that CILEX lawyers would retain distinct routes to qualification and codes of conduct, and that there would be no cross‑subsidy from solicitors. The SRA also framed its involvement as consistent with its Legal Services Act objectives, while acknowledging that significant further work and consultation were required before any final transfer could occur.
CILEx Regulation opposed the redelegation, largely because it believed the proposal was neither necessary nor justified in the public interest. CILEX Regulation argued that CILEX had failed to produce robust evidence that transferring regulation to the SRA would improve consumer protection, warning instead that it could reduce existing safeguards and increase confusion rather than clarity. It also maintained that the proposal was potentially unlawful, undermining the Legal Services Act model of independent regulation, and represented an existential threat to a specialist regulator which it said had been operating effectively, proportionately and in the consumer interest.
The Law Society opposed the proposal on the basis that it had not been shown to deliver clear public‑interest benefits and risked increasing, rather than reducing, consumer confusion about professional titles and regulatory responsibility. It argued that CILEX and the SRA had failed to provide robust evidence that transferring regulation would improve consumer protection or regulatory outcomes, particularly given that existing arrangements were functioning adequately. The Society also expressed concern that the move would divert the SRA from its core regulatory role and blur important distinctions between solicitors and other legal professionals.
I noticed many misconceptions about the talks. For instance, some suggested that the SRA, through supervision, regulates CILEX members. While it’s true that the SRA can issue a section 43 Order to prevent a CILEX member from working in an SRA law firm, the regulation is quite different. It would mean the SRA has two types of regulated lawyers, but the core issue with CILEX is the subcategories of lawyers, which CILEX plans to expand. I argued that SRA regulation of CILEX members alone wouldn’t simplify transferring onto the solicitors’ roll, as regulation and qualification are separate, and training pathway differences remain crucial. I believe that presenting redelegation as a way to improve professional mobility could mislead CILEX practitioners and distract from the real regulatory issues.
Overall, I believe Mazur is likely a key influence in the SRA ending discussions. The SRA faces numerous regulatory challenges, including matters with the PM Law group and other reforms like the potential closure of client accounts. Regardless, I think the best course is for CILEX to reconcile with CILEX Regulation and focus on supporting their members, who now have considerable damage control to manage after Mazur’s fallout.
Information
Alec Hancock is a practising Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.
