Earlier this month, the Gazette reported how law firm director and chartered legal executive Lisa Burton-Durham had been told by the court she could no longer represent a family client in the light of the Mazur judgment.
Here she talks through the personal and professional impact the Mazur ruling has had since last September, and how the profession has responded:
What has working life been like since Mazur?
'It has been an unsettling time. There’s no other way to describe it. On the one hand, aspects of my professional life have carried on as normal. I have continued to run the Family Law Partners’ Brighton office and remain in my role as group director. I have continued to support, mentor and develop my team of six lawyers and two paralegals. I have also been able to keep working with my clients who are not involved in litigation.
My firm’s managing director and board were very quick to act at the time and we put in place a plan and measures to ensure myself and the firm were compliant with the Legal Services Act 2007. They also spoke to our insurers. The issue we struggled with was the definition of ‘conducting litigation’ and what that really meant on a practical level.
I was about to leave for a holiday abroad when the Mazur news broke. It most definitely impacted that well-earned (and important) break from work. I spent much of my time away refreshing LinkedIn to read all the commentary and articles that were springing up, and of course I was in constant contact with my CEO who was dealing with the fallout back home.'
Did caseloads have to be removed straight away?
'For me, yes, but only in relation to my "live" litigation cases which in fact were around 10 at the time. The majority of my cases are not in litigation. Indeed, mine and Family Law Partners’ ethos is very much about keeping things out of court and looking at all other dispute resolution options. So, about 10 of my cases were transferred to colleagues. I was fortunate that I had a number of extremely able (and willing!) solicitor colleagues who were in a position to take over my cases. I work closely with my team and thankfully they had already had some dealings with the cases and the clients knew them. Handing over a caseload though, however small, had an impact as it requires time in bringing the new lawyer up to date with the proceedings and strategy. One case, in particular, was at a very delicate stage in the proceedings and the change left me feeling that I had let the client down.
I have continued to provide support and assistance on the litigation cases that are still running but effectively any strategic/final decisions and other key aspects of conducting litigation are carried out by a solicitor and not me. As my CEO says the “usual suspects” who comment on all the Law Society Gazette articles have no concept of what it actually means to clients to go through a change like this, especially at a critical time in their matter. And of course it’s the firm who would be responsible if I or another senior lawyer made a mistake. The argument that everyone knew what the 2007 Act meant was clearly missed by the regulators.'
How did clients take the news that they had to change their lawyer?
'Generally, very well. They were understanding and I didn’t receive any negative responses. Naturally, they needed reassurance that any disruption would be minimal and there was a level of uncertainty but the transition was handled carefully and sensitively. It was a reminder of the importance of having strong client service levels and good communication and processes around client care.'
How has it felt having to reapply for the right to do what you were able to just six months ago?
'From a personal perspective, it has been a rollercoaster of feelings. I swung from disbelief to anger to resolve and back again. I passed my family law exams in 1994 and became a fellow chartered legal executive in 2006 – a year before the Legal Services Act 2007. I had been doing the job for 20 years. The messaging had always been clear “you are the same as a solicitor but with limited rights of audience” which were generally confined to chambers hearings in the family court. And that’s what my long-standing colleagues have always believed. Naively I assumed that CILEx/CRL would grant me authorisation automatically in light of my qualification and experience but it was becoming increasingly clear that that was not going to happen. I just kept thinking that common sense would prevail soon. Instead, despite my qualifications and experience I have been forced down a road of applying for practice rights. I have chosen the portfolio route which, so far, has taken over 80 hours to complete. My bundle of portfolio evidence – to prove that I have the knowledge and understanding, experience and skills in family litigation – runs to over 650 pages. The competencies you’re expected to demonstrate depend on your experience, which creates difficulties in light of the implications of Mazur.'
How has your firm and the wider profession responded?
'I was and am fortunate to be part of an extremely supportive firm. I cannot praise the leadership team and my colleagues at Family Law Partners enough. The messages of support and encouragement have been overwhelming, not only from our internal team but also other lawyers (solicitors, legal executives et al), some that I know and some that I don’t.
I know that the majority of firms have been incredibly supportive of their chartered legal executives and paralegals and this is heartening.
I wish I could say the same for all other paralegals and chartered legal executives who find themselves trying to navigate this mess. I know of one chartered legal executive who was immediately demoted to a paralegal and given a 50% pay cut. And don’t even get me started on some of the disparaging comments that solicitors (and it is solicitors in the main, unfortunately) have made publicly (although often anonymously!) about the skill of paralegals and CILEx practitioners. I thought the days of professional snobbery were behind us. Unfortunately, the Mazur judgment appears to have taken us back in time. I have previously been asked if I wanted to qualify as a solicitor but I was always fiercely proud of my role as a fellow chartered legal executive.
The common themes I see in the CILEx community are feelings of disbelief, low mood and being wronged - and whilst there has been a lot of support it is probably only those that are affected who truly understand the impact it has had and continues to have. Ultimately, whoever within the firm undertakes the client work, the public are protected by the firm’s regulated status. The human impact on hard working and experienced chartered legal executives who believed in their significant effort to qualify is significant. The broader impact on CILEx is quite another. They have much to do to repair their reputation.'
No comments yet