Legal executives facing an uncertain future following the Mazur ruling have pleaded with regulators to make immediate changes to protect their livelihoods.
The newly-formed CILEX Support Group, which now has more than 1,300 members, has written to the Legal Services Board asking to resolve this issue.
There are already reports that firms have culled staff who are no longer considered able to conduct litigation – even under supervision – following the judge’s remarks in last month's Mazur judgment.
Since the judgment it has emerged that CILEX had regularly given its members false assurances that they could work under supervision. The organisation has continued to maintain that it kept members properly informed.
There is a particular problem for legal executives who have practised for years but now find they are suddenly unauthorised - and in some firms considered to be surplus to requirements.
The CILEx course and qualification changed in 2021 to give successful candidates the rights to litigate without supervision. So-called legacy fellows who qualified before 2021 must now apply for additional litigation (and advocacy) practice rights. This is through an exam assessment or portfolio application based on experience, skills and competence – neither of which are realistic solutions for many people with family commitments or working on limited budgets.
Practice rights became available in 2014 but members say the message was put out by CILEX that you they needed to acquire the rights if they wished to own their own legal practice alone or with other legal executives.
The CILEX Support Group said the LSB, which is due to meet with representative and regulatory bodies today, has the power to help overcome this issue.
Read more
In a statement, the group urged the oversight regulator to exercise its powers under Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 to add legacy fellows to the list of exempt persons entitled to conduct litigation and exercise associated rights. ‘These practitioners have, for decades, delivered vital legal services under robust and lawful supervision frameworks,’ said the group. ‘Their sudden exclusion is arbitrary, harmful, and inconsistent with the regulatory fairness the LSB is charged with upholding.’
Practitioners spelled out the fallout of the decision and the sudden loss of ability to act for clients in litigation. This has not only affected legal executives handling cases, but will harm consumer protection if clients lose representation, the group said.
The statement added: ‘Fellows, who have long been expressly recognised throughout the profession for the qualified , specialist, skilled lawyers they are, now find themselves unreservedly stripped of their professional standing and in fear of a far-reaching impact upon their livelihoods. Countless numbers have already spoken of losing their jobs and suffering damage to their mental well-being.’
7 Readers' comments