If you read the Mazur headlines in autumn 2025, you may still hold a view that has since been reversed. This guide gives the full history, where the law stands on 22 October 2026 and what changes when you hire. It is general information, not legal advice. Take advice on your own supervision arrangements.
Where does the Mazur ruling stand on 22 October 2026?#
The High Court ruling was reversed, and the Court of Appeal decision is the position now. On 31 March 2026 the Court of Appeal held that unauthorised people can perform litigation tasks, if an authorised person keeps responsibility. Every source we read to 22 October 2026 treats that as current.
Here is the history, with each date from the page we read.
16 Sep 2025
Mr Justice Sheldon decides Mazur in the High Court, reported as [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB).
1 Oct 2025
The SRA says the High Court judgment does not change the position in law.
24 Nov 2025
The Court of Appeal gives CILEX permission to appeal.
31 Mar 2026
The Court of Appeal allows the appeal, after hearing it on 23, 25 and 26 February.
22 Apr 2026
The Law Society says it will not appeal.
12 Jun 2026
The SRA publishes updated supervision guidance.
27 Jul 2026
The Legal Services Board publishes its final report on past regulator guidance.
What was the Mazur case about?#
It asked whether a person who is not authorised can do the tasks of conducting litigation while working under a solicitor's supervision. Conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007. The Act makes it an offence to carry on litigation without entitlement (Legal Futures, 23 April 2026).
On 16 September 2025 Mr Justice Sheldon held that it did not. On 1 October 2025 the SRA said the judgment did not change the law. It said unauthorised staff could support litigation under appropriate supervision but could not conduct it. The line, it said, depends on the facts.
Firms felt the effect. The Legal Services Board's final report says some firms reassigned work, and some individuals lost their jobs, retired early or were demoted.
CILEX was not a party in the High Court. It appealed anyway, and the Court of Appeal gave permission. The Law Society and the SRA argued that the High Court decision should stand. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Law Centres Network supported CILEX (Law Gazette, 31 March 2026).
What did the Court of Appeal decide?#
It decided that unauthorised people can lawfully do litigation tasks for an authorised person, provided that person keeps responsibility. The judges were Sir Geoffrey Vos, Sir Colin Birss and Lady Justice Andrews. Sir Colin gave the judgment, and the others agreed.
Here is what the judgment says, in short.
- The tasks and the responsibility are separate. "Conduct of litigation" refers to the tasks. "Carry on" refers to direction, control and responsibility for them (paragraph 187).
- The authorised person is the one carrying on the litigation. The court said so in paragraphs 25 and 187(v). Kingsley Napley quotes it as saying the unauthorised person does not commit an offence.
- Delegation needs proper direction, management, supervision and control. The details are a matter for the regulators, and the degree of control depends on the circumstances (paragraph 187).
- Prior approval of every task is not required. Control may be high in some cases. For routine work, regular meetings and sampling of work may be enough (Legal Futures, 31 March 2026).
- There is a limit. Lady Justice Andrews said the key question is whether the person is in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual. If not, they commit an offence (paragraph 198).
The court gave no complete list of tasks inside or outside conduct of litigation (paragraph 29). Bevan Brittan lists six kinds of work that the judgment treats as unlikely to count. Legal Futures lists seven, adding gathering evidence.
- Pre-litigation work.
- Legal advice about proceedings.
- Letters to opponents.
- Instructing counsel and experts.
- Signing a statement of truth.
- Signing documents the Civil Procedure Rules let a legal representative sign.
It also reports that approving statements of case and deciding to issue proceedings are likely to count. They can still be delegated.
What has happened since the Court of Appeal ruled?#
The regulators have updated their guidance, the Law Society has decided not to appeal, and the court has made a small clarification. Nothing in the pages we read shows a case still going through the courts.
| Body | What it did | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Law Society | Said it would not appeal. A spokeswoman later told Legal Futures it would review its practice note after the court's clarification. We could not open the Law Society's own pages to check what changed. | 22 and 23 April 2026. |
| Court of Appeal | Made three small clarifications under the slip rule, to paragraphs 25, 27 and 187(vii), adding paragraph 31A. | April 2026. |
| CILEx Regulation | Issued new litigation and supervision guidance, developed with CILEX and the SRA, replacing its October 2025 interim guidance. | 29 May 2026. |
| SRA | Published expanded supervision guidance with case studies, reviewed by the Law Society and CILEx Regulation among others. | 12 June 2026. |
| Legal Services Board | Published its final report and asked regulators for four actions. | 27 July 2026. |
The court's clarification is worth reading in full. Legal Futures reports that it was made after the Law Society asked the court how the judgment should be read. It says the change makes clear that a firm is not at risk of the criminal offence merely because its supervision was inadequate (23 April 2026). The judgment on the National Archives site is now marked as a revised version. Read paragraph 31A yourself or ask your adviser.
The SRA's Jonathan Peddie said the court had provided clarity and the SRA's overall position remained the same. The SRA adds that its guidance sets no new standards beyond its existing rules.
The Legal Services Board found that earlier regulator advice had varied in clarity and consistency. It asked regulators for clearer guidance on adequate supervision, wider sharing of draft guidance, better data on reserved activities and stronger assurance. It set no deadlines on its page.
1,000+
Chartered Legal Executives awarded litigation practice rights in the six months before 29 June 2026.
1,390
practice rights authorisations since January 2026, as listed on the hub on 18 September 2026.
£450
CILEx Regulation's application fee for litigation practice rights, as stated by CILEX.
4
actions the Legal Services Board asked regulators to take in its final report of 27 July 2026.
What is still moving? CILEX says it will press the government on the regulatory framework. CILEx Regulation says its guidance does not cover every situation and that it is developing supervision case studies. Meanwhile, work to the current guidance and keep records.
What does it mean for supervising CILEX Fellows and paralegals?#
It means a Fellow can run litigation tasks without litigation practice rights, if an authorised person stays responsible and supervises properly. The same reasoning applies to paralegals and litigation executives. The court's rule is about any person who is not authorised.
Fellow without litigation practice rights
- May conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised person.
- The authorised person keeps responsibility and must direct, manage, supervise and control the work.
- Needs litigation practice rights to supervise unauthorised staff who conduct litigation.
- Rights of audience are a separate reserved activity under Schedule 2. Check them separately.
Fellow with litigation practice rights
- May conduct litigation independently.
- Carries responsibility as an authorised person.
- May supervise unauthorised staff who conduct litigation.
- The same applies. Check rights of audience separately.
The SRA's guidance sets out what proper supervision looks like. It says there is no single model. It says delegation can be direct allocation of named tasks or a documented scheme, and must be clear and not based on assumptions. The supervisor should decide when and how to check the work. The authorised person must be able to show they directed the progress of each matter. Proportionate audit is expected, with prompt action on any problem.
The SRA also expects you to write down why you chose your arrangements. It suggests emails, file notes and time records as evidence. It adds that a supervisor with their own fee-earning caseload has less time to supervise. Our guide to how to check supervision before your first law job shows what your own candidates will ask you.
On this siteWhat does a mismatched hire cost you?Put your own salary and months in post into the calculator and see each line of the sum with its source. Nothing you type is sent or stored.Open the calculatorWhat should a firm hiring a CILEX lawyer check?#
Check the rights they hold, the supervision they had and the work they will do for you. Do it before the offer, not after the first contentious file lands.
Which litigation practice rights do you hold?
YesAsk which rights, when they were awarded and by whom. Confirm with CILEx Regulation.
NoAsk whether they have applied and when they expect a decision. Until then, supervise them as you would any unauthorised person.
Who supervised your litigation work, and how was it recorded?
YesA named authorised person, and file notes or emails that show it.
No"Informally" is not an answer. Ask what was written down. The SRA expects supervision to be evidenced.
What did you do alone, and what did you refer up?
YesA clear line, with examples of decisions that went to the supervisor.
NoIf the line is vague, ask who decided to issue proceedings.
Do you use the title CILEX Lawyer?
YesCILEX lists criteria, such as holding litigation rights or declaring you will obtain them by the end of 2026. Ask which applies.
NoAsk which rights they do hold. The title is not the same as the authorisation.
Then check your own firm. Use this list for each team that runs contentious files.
On insurance, we have not read an insurer's statement on Mazur, so we do not state one. Ask your broker and get the answer in writing.
Does Mazur affect conveyancing and other work?#
Mainly not. The case was about the conduct of litigation. Preparing a transfer or charge of land for registration, and applying to register it, are different reserved activities under paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Legal Services Act 2007. CILEX conveyancing practice rights are a separate route, open to any person who can demonstrate competence.
It matters where CILEX staff run contentious matters. Think of a boundary dispute in a conveyancing team, a contested estate in a private client team or a lease dispute in a commercial property team. If a Fellow touches those files, apply this article.
Caseload belongs in the same conversation. A supervisor with a full caseload has less time to supervise, as the SRA says. Our article on how many live files is too many shows how to count the load per person.
How does Mazur change hiring?#
It makes practice rights a normal interview question. It also makes supervision capacity a real limit on how many CILEX hires you can take. CILEX CVs will increasingly list rights. Candidates will ask you how supervision works. Both are healthy.
Three practical effects follow.
- Check, do not assume. A title on a CV is not an authorisation. Ask for the rights and confirm them with CILEx Regulation.
- Plan supervision before you hire. Know who will supervise, how often and with what time. Candidates ask. Our supervision guide lists the questions.
- Say what you will do in the advert. State the supervision and the type of files. See how to write a conveyancer job advert for the pattern.
Whoever sends you a CILEX lawyer should say in writing which rights the person holds and what they have done under supervision. Our checklist for choosing a legal recruiter includes the questions to put to an agency. If a hire does not work out, see how the six-month unfair dismissal change affects your timing.
On this siteTell us about the roleSay which rights and what supervision the role needs. The first step is a 30-minute discovery meeting on Microsoft Teams, and you get a written market read before you pay anything.Register a vacancyTerms are agreed in writing before any CV is sent. Our employers page explains how that works.
Sources
- National Archives: Mazur and others v Chartered Institute of Legal Executives [2026] EWCA Civ 369, Court of Appeal judgment (31 March 2026)
- CILEX: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys FAQs (last updated 29 June 2026)
- CILEx Regulation: Mazur, litigation and supervision information hub
- CILEx Regulation: new guidance on the conduct of litigation and supervision (29 May 2026)
- SRA: Effective supervision guidance, conduct of litigation (updated 12 June 2026)
- SRA: supervision guidance updated (news release, 12 June 2026)
- SRA: response to the Mazur v CILEX judgment (31 March 2026)
- SRA: statement on Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys (1 October 2025)
- Legal Services Board: regulators work together to strengthen conduct of litigation guidance (final report, 27 July 2026)
- Legal Services Board: targeted reviews, conduct of litigation review timeline
- Law Gazette: As it happened, Mazur judgment, CILEX wins appeal (31 March 2026)
- Legal Futures: Return to normality, Court of Appeal overturns Mazur ruling (31 March 2026)
- Legal Futures: The drama is over, no Mazur appeal (22 April 2026)
- Legal Futures: Exclusive, CA clarifies Mazur ruling after Law Society application (23 April 2026)
- Bevan Brittan: Mazur, Court of Appeal overturns restrictions on conduct of litigation (31 March 2026)
- Kingsley Napley: Mazur and others v CILEX and others (the firm acted for CILEX)
- legislation.gov.uk: Legal Services Act 2007, Schedule 2 (reserved legal activities)
This is general information, not legal advice. Where a figure comes from another organisation, the source is above, and we say when it is dated.