CILEx Regulation issues guidance for Chartered Legal Executives handling Court of Protection work

The note comes after the Legal Services Board approved CRL’s application to authorise standalone litigation practice rights, following the decision in Mazur. These changes, which took effect immediately, mean that CILEx members with Fellowship status can now apply for standalone litigation practice rights through one of three different assessment methods.

In the Court of Protection note, CRL said: “We recognise that CoP practice is extremely varied and practitioners, including [Chartered Legal Executives], often have different professional backgrounds and experience.

“In large, specialised practices, practitioners may concentrate solely on CoP work, whilst in other practices they may undertake a mix of CoP work alongside other areas of Family or Civil Practice. In other practices, it may be part of what is often referred to as ‘Private Client’ work, that is dealing mainly with high net-worth individuals and their property, trusts, tax arrangements etc which may not involve much court-based work.”

CRL said that in terms of the most appropriate litigation pathway, Family Litigation or Civil Litigation are the closest match to the work undertaken for the CoP.

It added that it is up to an individual Chartered Legal Executive to decide which of the two litigation pathways best reflects the work they undertake in their role.

“CRL will recognise 2 years’ experience of working in a CoP role as meeting the eligibility criteria, along with 5 years' overall legal experience, for either the Portfolio or ULaw routes to authorisation,” it said.

The guidance also notes that CILEX members have felt they would have difficulty evidencing some elements within the litigation pathways, namely: Costs and funding; Managing litigation work; and Settlement V Litigation.

CRL said: “In reviewing CoP applications, CRL Assessors recognise that evidence may not be available to support each individual learning outcome. When such situations arise, we expect applicants to detail how the particular learning outcome applies to their CoP role.

“For example, in relation to the costs and funding element, we recognise that costs are determined in accordance with Practice Direction 19b. We would accept evidence from a CLE of compliance with the Practice Direction and details of circumstances in which they choose not to limit their fees to the fixed fee but request a detailed assessment by the Senior Court Costs Office.”

The note adds that Chartered Legal Executives are also eligible to apply for Mental Capacity (Welfare) Accreditation through the Scheme offered by The Law Society.

However it does not appear to address advocacy rights.

Earlier today (18 November) CILEX announced that it is applying for permission to appeal the Mazur ruling, saying it held "serious concerns" about the impact on law firms, lawyers and the public of Mr Justice Sheldon's decision.