Legal Services Board calls for regulators to provide clear information in wake of Mazur judgment

At a board meeting on 9 October, the oversight regulator - which regulates frontline regulators such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority and CILEx Regulation - said it expected all regulated individuals to work within their authorised scope of practice.

It also emphasised the importance of collaboration between regulators to ensure a consistent approach across the sector.

The statement comes after the decision in Julia Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), in which Mr Justice Sheldon 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 LSB also said it had received an application from CILEx Regulation to enable its regulated community to obtain standalone litigation practice rights, following Mazur.

The application is being prioritised, the board added.

As part of its response, the LSB will undertake a review of how approved regulators and regulatory bodies have ensured that information about conducting litigation is accurate and reliable.

"Our review will help us all learn lessons and maintain clarity and confidence in the regulatory framework," an LSB spokesperson said.

CILEx Regulation, which regulates Chartered Legal Executives, has said it is actively working to address challenges faced by its members as a result of the Mazur judgment.

Alongside its application to the LSB, the regulator has issued interim guidance on the conduct of litigation and updated its frequently asked questions page based on queries from its regulated community.

Further measures are planned, including webinars for CILEX practitioners and entities, and preparations to handle a large number of applications for practice rights – potentially through additional recruitment, the regulator said.

Combined litigation and advocacy practice rights can be obtained online via one of two routes.

The first is the portfolio route, which requires applicants to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the relevant area of law and evidence their workplace experience in it. The second route is through the University of Law, which offers assessment-only and assessment-and-training routes to gain practice rights.

CILEx Regulation said it hopes to have the "same options for standalone litigation rights soon, subject to LSB approval".

It added: "You may wish to prepare your portfolio or contact ULaw to enroll in a course in advance of the LSB's decision on our application, although we are unable to give a specific date as to when standalone litigation rights may become available."

Earlier this month, the Law Society issued a statement on Mazur stating that the boundary between conducting litigation and assisting an authorised person to do so "remains something of a grey area, on which further clarification would be welcome".

Adam Carey

See also: Authority to participate in legal proceedings and rights of audience - in light of the High Court ruling in Mazur, Geoff Wild considers how councils should set themselves up to conduct litigation lawfully and ensure the person authorised to conduct legal proceedings on behalf of the council is legally qualified and that any non-lawyers are properly authorised.