One the most significant judgments for the legal profession in recent years is to be handed down by the Court of Appeal today.

The three appeal judges: Sir Geoffrey Vos, master of the rolls, Lord Justice Birss and Lady Justice Andrews, will give their verdict in Mazur and others v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP. The remote hand-down is listed to be at 10.30am.

The case has taken on importance for the legal profession as a whole, examining as it does who is permitted to conduct litigation. That invites the question of what work can be assigned to legal executives, paralegals and trainee solicitors who are not authorised, and calls into question numerous business models developed by firms in the last 15 years which rely on these staff.

The judges will examine whether Mr Justice Sheldon was right to contend that unauthorised staff were not permitted to conduct litigation, even under supervision, according to the terms of the Legal Services Act.

The ruling from last September was challenged by the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, which was supported by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Law Centres Network. The Law Society and Solicitors Regulation Authority intervened to argue that the Mazur ruling should be upheld.

Read more

Commenting ahead of the hearing, CILEX chief executive Jennifer Coupland said: ‘Since the judgment in Mazur was handed down last year, CILEX has had serious concerns about its impact on the legal sector.

‘The consequences for many of our members have been profound but the shock waves go far beyond CILEX, affecting the operation of law firms, local government and law centres. Further, given CILEX members are more likely to come from groups traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession, the judgment threatens diversity in the law as well as restricting competition and access to justice.’

The appeal court heard directly from Julia Mazur and her partner Jerome Stuart, whose original dispute had been over fees being charged when work had been carried out by an unauthorised person. Stuart argued in court that the act provided public protection but did not prevent litigation tasks being delegated.

The appeal hearing lasted three days and concluded just over a month ago. It is believed that a ruling was expedited based on the significance of the outcome.

Topics