Court of Appeal Reverses Mazur Ruling, Restores Normalcy

The Court of Appeal has ruled that unauthorised staff may perform litigation tasks if supervised by an authorised lawyer. Sir Colin Birss, Chancellor of the High Court, gave the unanimous judgment. The decision effectively reverses Mazur and restores normalcy to long-standing delegation practices.

Background and legal context

The dispute concerned how the Legal Services Act 2007 affects delegation by solicitors. CILEX argued solicitors historically delegated tasks to unqualified staff. Regulators, including the Law Society and the SRA, took a different view in the lower court.

The case reached appeal after a judgment by Mr Justice Sheldon. The Law Centres Network intervened to protect service delivery models used by law centres.

Key findings of the Court of Appeal

Sir Colin Birss rejected the distinction between merely assisting and conducting litigation under supervision. He held the authorised lawyer remains responsible when delegating tasks. An unauthorised person working under appropriate supervision does not themselves carry on litigation for statutory purposes.

The court read the phrase ‘‘carrying on the conduct of litigation’’ as two components. ‘‘Conduct of litigation’’ refers to the tasks. ‘‘Carry on’’ denotes who has direction, control and responsibility.

Responsibility and delegation

The ruling confirms that delegation does not remove professional accountability. Solicitors and appropriately authorised CILEX members retain duty for work they delegate. Regulators must set standards for management, supervision and control.

The level of oversight must fit the task. High-risk activities may require prior approval. Routine tasks may need periodic meetings and sample checks.

Tasks unlikely to be treated as conduct of litigation

• Pre‑litigation work.
• Providing legal advice related to court proceedings.
• Conducting correspondence with opposing parties on clients’ behalf.
• Gathering evidence.
• Instructing or liaising with experts and counsel.
• Signing a statement of truth for a statement of case.
• Signing other documents the CPR allows a legal representative to sign.

Implications and next steps

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and overturned the lower decision. Sir Colin remarked that the appeal hearing provided fuller argument than earlier hearings.

Regulators will now need to clarify supervisory standards. Law centres and firms relying on delegated models gain legal certainty.

Filmogaz.com will publish reactions and analysis as they emerge. Stakeholders should monitor guidance from the Law Society, the SRA and CILEX.