The Court of Appeal has now handed down its much-anticipated judgment in CILEX v Mazur. The decision not only seals that CILEX has won its appeal against the Mazur ruling but also delivers significant clarification on the extent to which litigation tasks may be carried out by non-authorised legal professionals.
The decision marks an important development for chambers, solicitors’ firms, and legal services providers alike. This restores a much needed degree of certainty following months of disruption across the profession.
Background to the Appeal in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
The appeal arose from the High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025], which adopted a restrictive interpretation of the Legal Services Act 2007. The ruling suggested that CILEX members could not lawfully conduct litigation, even where acting under supervision.
That decision created immediate and widespread concern.
Firms were forced to reassess long-standing working practices, with fears around delays, increased costs, and the viability of business models reliant on delegated work. The judgment also raised broader questions about access to justice, particularly for law centres and organisations dependent on supervised legal staff.
CILEX, though not a party to the original proceedings, was granted permission to appeal on the basis that the issues were of significant importance to the profession as a whole.
The Court of Appeal’s decision
In a decisive outcome, the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court’s ruling, holding that non-authorised individuals may carry out litigation tasks, provided they are properly supervised by an authorised lawyer.
The court emphasised that delegation of litigation tasks has long been a “widespread” and “well-regulated” feature of legal practice. It also rejected the suggestion that the Legal Services Act 2007 was intended to disrupt this established approach.
Importantly, the court declined to produce an exhaustive list of what constitutes the “conduct of litigation”, recognising that the concept is inherently fact-sensitive. Instead, the judgment places renewed emphasis on supervision as the key safeguard, with responsibility resting on authorised lawyers to ensure appropriate oversight arrangements are in place.
Key takeaways for practitioners as CILEX wins appeal against Mazur ruling
The judgment restores a pragmatic and functional understanding of how litigation is conducted in practice. For barristers and instructing solicitors, several points emerge:
- Delegation remains permissible
Routine litigation tasks such as drafting documents or preparing bundles may be undertaken by non-authorised staff where properly supervised.
- Supervision is central
The adequacy of supervision will be critical in determining compliance with the statutory framework.
- No ‘bright-line test’
The absence of a definitive list of permitted activities means practitioners must continue to exercise careful judgment on a case-by-case basis.
- Alignment with practice
The ruling reflects the realities of modern legal services delivery in which teamwork and delegation are essential to efficiency.
What are the wider implications resulting from Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP?
The decision is expected to be widely welcomed across the legal sector. The High Court ruling had led to uncertainty, satellite litigation and operational disruption, with some firms even questioning the sustainability of their existing structures.
By contrast, the Court of Appeal’s judgment is likely to stabilise working practices and reduce the risk of procedural challenges based on the status of those undertaking litigation tasks. It also supports continued access to justice by preserving flexible staffing models within both private practice and the not-for-profit sector.
That said, the judgment does not eliminate all ambiguity. The court’s refusal to define the outer limits of “conduct of litigation” leaves scope for future disputes. Therefore, regulatory guidance may now play an increasingly important role in shaping best practice.
In conclusion many feel the Mazur appeal represents a significant and welcome clarification of the law governing delegation in litigation. By reaffirming the legitimacy of supervised work by non-authorised individuals, the Court of Appeal has aligned legal principle with longstanding professional practice.
For barristers’ chambers, the decision provides reassurance that existing models of collaboration with solicitors’ firms remain sound,
Further guidance from regulators and professional bodies is anticipated, but for now, the judgment seems to have restored a measure of certainty to an area that had become somewhat unsettled.
Westgate Chambers continues to stand in support with all CILEX trained professionals and will publish further updates as they become available.