Court of Appeal to hear Mazur appeal next week

The Court of Appeal will next week consider CILEx's challenge to the High Court’s ruling in Julia Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP.

The professional body for CILEX Lawyers, Chartered Legal Executives, paralegals and other legal professionals, launched its appeal bid last year over “serious concerns” about the impact of Mr Justice Sheldon's judgment on law firms, lawyers and the public.

Sheldon J ruled that an employee of an authorised firm cannot conduct litigation simply by virtue of their employment, even if supervised by an authorised person.

The decision raised questions over the use of legal executives in the conduct of litigation and has led to a series of practice notes and guidance being published by legal bodies, including the Law Society and CILEX Regulation.

The appeal hearing is scheduled to take place across three days, beginning at 2pm on Monday (23 February). The court will also sit on the 25 and 26 February.

It is understood that the hearing will be live-streamed on the Court of Appeal’s YouTube channel.

Commenting on the decision to pursue an appeal, CILEX's chief executive, Jennifer Coupland, said the “consequences for many of our members have been profound but the shock waves go far beyond CILEX, affecting the operation of law firms, local government and law centres.

“Further, given CILEX members are more likely to come from groups traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession, the judgment threatens diversity in the law as well as restricting competition and access to justice."

She continued: "We are hoping for a swift decision that provides certainty and clarity for both our members and the wider profession and would like to thank our legal team, who are acting in pro bono in this important case.”

CILEX is being represented by Nick Bacon KC, head of 4 New Square, Helen Evans KC, Teen Jui Chow and Faye Metcalfe of 4 New Square, Iain Miller, a partner, and Stephen Nelson and Phoebe Alexander, senior associates, at City law firm Kingsley Napley and Greg Cox, managing partner of Simpson Millar.

Interveners include the Law Centres Network (LCN) and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers.

The LCN – which is also represented by a legal team on a pro bono basis – said its intervention seeks to ensure the court is also able to consider the implications for non-commercial, access to justice organisations such as law centres.

It said it will argue that Sheldon J's judgment fails to address the unique position of law centres, which are not themselves organisations authorised under the Legal Services Act 2007, but which employ authorised solicitors who supervise highly experienced, specialist caseworkers.

Chief executive Julie Bishop said when the LCN was granted permission to intervene: “Law centres work within the regulatory framework and are committed to high standards of supervision and provision of legal services to the public. But the judgment leaves uncertainty about how that framework applies to access to justice organisations like ours.

"Without clarity, there is a real risk that people facing eviction, loss of income or discrimination will find it harder to access legal help, not because their case lacks merit but because of how regulation is interpreted in practice. We need a definition of 'conduct' that is proportionate, workable, and grounded in the public interest.”

Last month, Lawyers in Local Government (LLG) announced it would pursue legislative change instead of intervening in the Mazur appeal, in light of the "broad consensus" that the judgment "was a credible interpretation of the law".

A spokesperson for the membership body said: "There is broad consensus across the legal sector that, while the outcome in Mazur has had unfortunate and disruptive consequences for both the public and private sectors, the judgment itself is a credible interpretation of the law.

"In these circumstances, LLG considers that the most effective and responsible course of action is to pursue legislative clarification and reform, rather than look to overturn the decision through litigation."

Adam Carey