The law firm touting for post-Mazur business has forcefully denied accusations it was trying to ‘cash in’ on the aftermath of the unsettling judgment and insisted it was acting properly.

The Gazette reported yesterday that Cardiff firm Clodes Solicitors had published an article last week offering to provide its services to any former client of a law firm whose litigation may have been handled by an unauthorised legal executive.

The Mazur ruling from last month clarified the Legal Services Act in stating that those without practising rights could not conduct litigation, even under supervision from an authorised person. The case could prompt satellite litigation from former clients questioning whether their matter was handled lawfully.

Clodes had invited people in this position to discuss whether they could challenge solicitors’ fees or could be entitled to a cost reduction, but the post had sparked a furious backlash online from lawyers calling for solidarity in the profession.

In a statement issued on Monday, Clodes partner Damian Clode stated that lawyers should be free to discuss and advise on the implications of a particular case or statute.‘For those in the profession to suggest otherwise, or to ignore issues because some segments of the profession find them unpalatable, would be a dangerous path that undermines the rule of law,’ he said. ‘Our role is to interpret and apply the law as it stands, and to advise clients, accordingly, ensuring transparency and accountability within the legal services sector.’

Read more

The firm took down the article after what it described as ‘unprofessional communications and attempts to undermine our firm’s professional standing’, including personal targeting of a member of staff.

Clode said the firm was intending to represent clients using the law, and the suggestion this was wrong in any way risks undermining the integrity of the legal service market. He added: ‘Phrases like "cashing in" and "ambulance chasers" really should be dispensed with inside the profession as those that assist in a right of challenge or who highlight the law as it stands are merely assisting individuals or companies.

‘We believe that upholding the standards clarified by the High Court is vital for maintaining public trust in the legal profession. It is difficult to argue that clients should not have the right to scrutinise the lawfulness of the services for which they are being charged along with the level of renumeration.’

Meanwhile, calls have continued for representative body CILEX to be more accountable for advice it issued in recent years appearing to contradict the judge's conclusions in Mazur.

Legal executives have flagged up written guidance and a webinar from 2024 as examples where the organisation had wrongly said they were able to conduct litigation under supervision. The Gazette has also been shown private correspondence to members assuring them that they were authorised when this was not the case.

CILEX dismissed the webinar as ‘a single short clip’ which did not reflect the full discussion or the follow-up information provided to members afterwards. Members who saw the whole video say this is not true. They further dispute the CILEX statement from last week that the organisation ‘strongly encouraged’ members to obtain practising rights. CILEX has resisted calls to apologise for the uncertainty and confusion caused by its approach.

It is understood that the oversight regulator the Legal Services Board will meet regulators and representative bodies this week to establish what has happened and what action is planned.