Law Society to intervene in Court of Appeal Mazur challenge

The Law Society is to make representations in the Court of Appeal over the contested Mazur ruling. The solicitors’ representative body confirmed today that it has been granted permission to be joined as a respondent in the appeal. The parties are waiting for further directions and a hearing date from the court.

The case has been widely discussed in the legal profession since Mr Justice Sheldon handed down his ruling in September. The judge stated that the position as set out in the Legal Services Act was that litigation could only be conducted by authorised people, and not by unauthorised people who were under supervision. This appeared to contradict advice and guidance given to firms in recent years and also called into question the business model developed by many litigation firms whose business models have relied heavily on unauthorised legal executives and paralegals.

The decision to proceed with an intervention was discussed by the Society’s council last week during a private session.

Both the Law Society and the Solicitors Regulation Authority were listed as intervening parties in the High Court hearing in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP.

During that hearing, the Society’s analysis was that there are certain activities among the services that have traditionally been supplied by solicitors that may only be carried on by persons who have been authorised to do so, or who are exempt under the Legal Services Act.

It submitted to the court that whether or not a person supporting or assisting a solicitor to conduct litigation is conducting litigation themselves is a question of fact and degree. It contended that the service of process, preparing bundles and searches were ‘mechanical functions’ which have never been regarded as ancillary steps amounting to the conduct of litigation.

The Society further argued in the High Court Mazur hearing that it was in the public interest for authorised individuals to be in control of and have responsibility for litigation. As such, an authorised entity which provided a platform for unauthorised staff to conduct and control litigation would not be in the public interest.

The SRA has yet to say whether it will be formally involved in the Mazur appeal. The challenge was brought by the Chartered Institute for Legal Executives, which says that issues caused by the decision need detailed examination, having had a significant immediate impact on members and law firms more widely.