Court of Appeal hears from Julia Mazur

The Court of Appeal yesterday heard from the eponymous protagonist in Mazur, as this week’s landmark hearing reached its conclusion.

Julia Mazur and her husband Jerome Stuart both gave evidence, expressing surprise that a simple debt claim could have assumed such significance.

Mazur and Stuart were able to contest a legal bill after it was found that the litigator involved in the debt claim against her did not hold a practising certificate. Mr Justice Sheldon’s ruling has driven a coach and horses through the business models of firms that rely on paralegals to support their solicitors.

Julia Mazur told the court the case had never been about the conduct of a legal executive, but rather a former solicitor who had been conducting litigation despite being indefinitely suspended from practice. She said it was ‘disturbing’ that the SRA in her case had repeatedly said that the unauthorised person involved was permitted to conduct litigation. This stance was only reversed by Sheldon.

Mazur maintained that the Legal Services Act (LSA) is very clear and well written, and that she and other litigants in person have to fight harder and be more creative than those who are represented. When counterparts are making statements that are untrue or that cannot be explained, LiPs need the protection that the LSA provides, she said. 

‘Approving information that is put in front of judges has to be a reserved activity,’ she added. ‘Otherwise, if you have somebody who is not au fait or too scared to bring things up and say “I’m sorry, that person is not telling the truth”... If it seems egregious that every claim has to be checked – well, it means everyone has the same chance.’

Mazur added that she could see no reason why paralegals and other unauthorised staff cannot undertake tasks involved in litigation. She also expressed sympathy with the Law Centres Network, suggesting that centres should be able to apply for practising rights in individual cases.

Mazur closed by saying CILEX should pay the costs of the appeal, telling the court she had never wanted to be involved in this hearing and that the law should have been clarified by different means.

Judgment was reserved.