For the past two months Mazur has been the predominant issue raised with me by junior lawyers, including solicitors, chartered legal executives (CLEs), paralegals and registered foreign lawyers. While a fair amount has been devoted to seeking solutions, even ‘sticking plasters’ like the need to remind judges of legacy rights and exemptions to the Mazur ruling, all too often the news has been of lawyers losing jobs and the lack of sympathy towards them from those who think their qualifications mean they are totally unaffected by Mazur. Court delays, reduced staff count and increased workloads are impacting those qualified to conduct litigation, even with AI tools to support them.
For its part las month CILEX announced it is applying for permission to appeal Mazur, with lawyers losing jobs cited as one of the reasons for doing so. Civil litigators are better qualified than me to judge the chances of success. Either way some are taking matters into their own hands by pursuing qualification elsewhere:
'I am a neurodivergent mother who got a first in my law degree while in full-time employment and raising a neurodivergent family. I ran my own files for several years as a CILEX paralegal. I work at an SRA-regulated firm and no longer have my own caseload. Whilst I am grateful to still be working, I am exploring the solicitor route as I feel let down by CILEX and [CILEX Regulation Limited].'
CILEX’s news has followed the welcome step of CILEX Regulation Limited (CRL) gaining approval from the Legal Services Board (LSB) for stand-alone litigation rights for its members, along with the LSB’s announcement of a review into the accuracy and reliability of information on conducting litigation from 1 January 2010 to 24 October 2025. However more remains to be done; solicitors can help in this by being more supportive of our impacted colleagues. In the words of a CILEX member:
'Whilst the LSB has approved CRL’s application to separate litigation and advocacy rights - which is great for those of us who do not undertake any advocacy in our role - this has not fixed anything for CLEs who have been acting in good faith for many years.
There are many solicitors who I am sure at some point conducted litigation during their training contracts and paralegal jobs, yet have shown no sympathy that the routes to obtaining litigation practice rights are not easy to pursue, cost further fees and ultimately were presented as unnecessary for conducting litigation.
A pragmatic solution must be reached so we can resume our work. This is impacting people’s livelihoods. Our profession and clients will suffer if this continues.'
It’s something of a mystery to me where the animosity towards CLEs is coming from. When solicitors have shared their anecdotal stories with me of interactions with CLEs who aggravated them, I haven’t yet found one who did not admit that they had similar stories about solicitors.
For my part I remember as a student at the University of Southampton exploring whether to become a CLE or a solicitor. My vague recollection is that it was emphasised by the likes of Southampton Solent University that a CLE was not a comparable qualification to a solicitor. As I wasn’t sure which area of law I wanted to specialise in, I chose the solicitor route and went to the University of Law Guildford campus. Had I had the conference to specialise earlier in my legal career, I may well have become a CLE.
However, I would like to think that regardless of this I would still respond with basic human empathy to the following from a CLE:
'The worst part of the Mazur debacle for me has been the lack of support from the wider legal profession. From job losses to snide remarks, it’s a sad reminder of the need for SRA Principle 6 on encouraging equality, diversity and inclusion.
I hope employers and lawyers of all stripes take this as an opportunity to discuss how we can help each other in this trying time, rather than kicking others while they’re down.'
That said, it can be easy to think only of ourselves and perceived personal gain. However I doubt anyone reading this has had an easy path in their legal career, which begs the question: if you know the struggle, why would you not want to help?
Martin Whitehorn is a Law Society Council member for Junior Solicitors (0-6 years’ PQE). All views expressed are personal and not made on behalf of the Law Society
No comments yet