As Chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel, I must begin by acknowledging the sheer confusion that surrounds the Mazur judgment and the failures it has laid bare. This commentary reflects my own perception of the situation: one of being overwhelmed by the contradictory advice, confusion amongst practitioners and the absence of meaningful analysis of consumer risk. While the matter many have another day in the appellate court, my overriding concern is that consumers who are the very heart of our legal system must not be left as collateral damage. Under the Legal Services Act 2007, the Panel’s statutory remit is clear: to represent and champion the interests of consumers in the oversight of legal services regulation. It is from this position that I call for a framework that is simpler, clearer, and more coherent than the one we currently endure, and one that fully respects the standing of all qualified legal professionals serving consumers in this space.
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LL
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP has done more than reaffirm the Legal Services Act 2007’s prescription that only authorised individuals may conduct litigation. It has exposed a deeper malaise: the regulators and representative bodies concerned have sowed confusion, issued contradictory views, and arguably failed to protect consumers. The result? Practitioners were left in professional jeopardy, and consumers were arguably exposed to risk. Mazur is a consequence of a regulatory framework that has lost its way.
CILEX’s Contradictory Counsel
The internal conflict within the CILEX ecosystem is a case study in regulatory incoherence. CILEX, the representative body, advised its members that if they were employed within a solicitor firm, they could conduct litigation under the supervision of a solicitor. This was a misleading assurance that gave legal executives a false sense of security. We understand that CILEX Regulation, the separate regulatory arm, maintained that only those with specific, individual practice rights could conduct litigation, and that supervision was no substitute for authorisation. Since the High Court ruling, both bodies have had to review and remove advice.
Practitioners acted in good faith on advice from their own professional body, only to have the court in Mazur confirm they had been operating unlawfully. The professional and liability implications are profound. And now, the contradiction has spilled into the appellate courts. As reported by Legal Futures and the Law Gazette, CILEX has applied for permission to appeal the Mazur ruling, despite not being a party to the case. It argues that the judgment raises “serious concerns” for the profession and risks destabilising firms that relied on its guidance.
The SRA’s Endorsed Legal Fiction
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) cannot escape its share of blame. In Mazur, the High Court revealed that the SRA had formally advised Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors that employees could lawfully conduct reserved activities under section 21(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007. The SRA conceded that this advice was wrong. However, even if they made a single error of giving wrong advice in this one case, how has this not been picked up in its supervisory activities?
The Consumer Impact: Risks, Unknowns, and the Erosion of Trust
The Mazur judgment is not just a professional embarrassment for regulators and firms. It is potentially another consumer scandal. Ordinary clients who engaged law firms in good faith may be left exposed.
The Known Risks
False Assurance of Protection: Clients believed their litigation was being conducted by authorised, insured professionals. In reality, key steps may have been taken by individuals who, however competent, had no legal right to act.
Insurance Gaps: Professional indemnity insurance is predicated on lawful practice. If litigation was conducted unlawfully, insurers may argue their cover does not apply, leaving consumers uncompensated.
Procedural Vulnerability: Documents filed or actions taken by unauthorised staff could be challenged, potentially undermining entire proceedings.
The Troubling Unknowns
Scale of Exposure: We do not know how many cases over the past decade involved unauthorised litigation. Are we talking dozens, hundreds, or thousands?
Retroactive Consequences: Could past judgments be reopened or challenged? Can clients who thought their disputes were resolved face renewed uncertainty?
Insurance Fallout: Can insurers retrospectively deny claims? Could consumers be caught in disputes between firms and insurers, with their compensation hanging in the balance?
Responsibility for Redress: If regulators gave wrong advice, will they step in to protect consumers, or will individuals be left to pursue costly claims against firms?
Future Confidence: The reputational damage to the legal system itself is a consumer harm, eroding confidence in the rule of law.
Why This Matters
Consumers are not collateral damage in a professional turf war. They are the ones who:
• Paid for services under the assumption of lawful practice.
• Relied on regulators to ensure compliance.
• May now face uncertainty about the validity of their cases, the enforceability of judgments, and the availability of insurance protection.
The Legal Services Board
This brings us to the Legal Services Board (LSB). As the oversight regulator for the entire legal sector, its statutory purpose is to ensure that frontline regulators like the SRA and CILEX Regulation meet the Regulatory Objectives, which include promoting the public interest, supporting the constitutional principle of the rule of law, and improving access to justice.
Where was the LSB while this regulatory chaos unfolded? The LSB has told us that it is carrying out a review, likely to be published early next year. Either it was unaware of a significant crack in the regulatory framework it oversees, or it was aware but couldn’t or didn’t want to act. Both scenarios are concerning. There is clearly a weakness in the fundamental job of ensuring consistent, lawful application of the rules.
At the heart of this issue is the fragmented, incoherent framework that allows such contradictory positions to flourish. The integrity of the system now depends on more than compliance with the Mazur ruling. It demands a courageous, full-scale review of the regulatory framework so that it prioritises clarity over convenience, accountability over ambiguity, and above all, the protection of consumers and the public over the preservation of professional turf. Without it, the failures exposed by Mazur will not be an anomaly, but a pattern for the next regulatory crisis.
Tom Hayhoe, LSCP Chair