The Law Society has made an urgent call for clarity on the limits of reserved legal activities as the profession continues to grapple with the fallout from this month’s High Court ruling in Mazur.
The Gazette has been told that the decision in the case has sent tremors through some law firms, with experienced staff taken off litigation work and unqualified staff left feeling ostracised.
But the Solicitors Regulation Authority – which initially gave incorrect advice about practising rights as exposed in the Mazur case – continues to remain silent, with no response to requests for a statement. Meanwhile some legal executives have expressed anger at representative body CILEX for its lack of a clear response , particularly after it was revealed yesterday that it was providing incorrect guidance up to December 2023.
In its statement, the Law Society says that Mazur ‘does not change the law but provides an important reminder of the limitations on the work non-qualified staff working within regulated organisations may undertake in the context of litigation’.
The representative body says it is vital that the profession understands that litigation is a reserved legal activity which may be conducted only by authorised people, even within regulated firms. But it acknowledges that the profession needs answers to questions being posed about the roles of individuals within firms.
A spokesperson added: ‘Clarification on the question of where the boundary is between conducting litigation and assisting an authorised person would be welcome since this is an area which the court has not had the opportunity to consider in detail. This has added significance given the number of unregulated entities now providing services to litigants in person in connection with litigation.
‘Further clarity for practitioners is needed and we will be working with the SRA to achieve this so that firms can review their processes and adapt them as necessary.’
Law firm owners have told the Gazette that the situation is causing unrest and distress. One said: ‘Very senior fee earners are now unauthorised and having their files transferred to junior (but qualified) team members. Many are fearful for their job security and some have formed an “us v them” attitude.’
Another small firm owner said there was ‘fear and disillusion’ among staff who were assured by CILEX that qualifying through that body would allow them to conduct claims and litigation.
‘They are now disheartened with the outcome and the years they feel may have been wasted through choosing that route to CILEX qualification particularly as they were guided by those who ought to have know what they could and could not do,’ she added. We have spent days having to reassure them that for us as a firm very little will change as we have always had supervisory checks in place at each milestone.’
There is also concern that some firms have removed other work such as probate and conveyancing from legal executives as they are concerned that Mazur applies more widely. Some firms have imposed extra supervision on CILEX practitioners who have done conveyancing for many years.
11 Readers' comments