CILEX Wrongly Advised Legal Executives on Litigation Rights, High Court Rules

A High Court judgment has exposed long-standing confusion over who is authorised to conduct litigation in England and Wales — with the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) found to have issued incorrect guidance until late 2023.

Introduction

Thousands of legal executives may have been misinformed about their rights to conduct litigation, after it emerged that the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) had published invalid guidance for years.

Until December 2023, CILEX’s website stated that members employed by solicitor firms were authorised to carry out litigation — a claim that the High Court has now found to be legally incorrect under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA).

The revelation follows the case of Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, in which Mr Justice Sheldon confirmed that employment by an authorised law firm does not, by itself, entitle an employee to conduct litigation — even under supervision.

The ruling has sent ripples across the legal profession, exposing a gap in regulatory understanding and raising the prospect that some firms may have inadvertently committed criminal offences by allowing unentitled staff to handle reserved legal activities.

Background: Litigation as a Reserved Legal Activity

Under the Legal Services Act 2007, only authorised individuals — such as solicitors, barristers, and chartered legal executives with specific practising rights — may carry out “reserved legal activities.”

These include:

• Conducting litigation;
   
• Exercising rights of audience;
   
• Preparing reserved instruments (e.g., conveyancing);
   
• Probate activities;
   
• Notarial services; and
   
• Administration of oaths.
   

Legal executives can acquire independent rights to perform these activities, but only if they hold the relevant authorisation from CILEx Regulation, the regulatory arm of CILEX.

Until late 2023, however, CILEX’s official website suggested that employment within a solicitor’s firm automatically conferred authorisation to conduct litigation — a position that directly contradicts the statutory framework.

What the High Court Found

In Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2147 (Ch), the High Court examined whether a legal executive employed by a regulated law firm could validly conduct litigation under supervision.

Mr Justice Sheldon ruled unambiguously that employment by an authorised firm does not transfer the firm’s right to conduct litigation to its individual employees.

The judge stated:

“The Legal Services Act 2007 makes no provision for an unauthorised person to carry on a reserved legal activity, even under the supervision of an authorised individual.”

He went further, warning that a firm could commit an offence under section 14 of the LSA if it permits an unauthorised person to carry out such work.

This statement has alarmed both regulators and employers, given that many law firms — relying on earlier guidance — may have assigned litigation work to legal executives who lacked the necessary personal authorisation.

Conflicting Regulatory Guidance

The confusion does not end with CILEX. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) was also implicated in the Mazur case, after it emerged that it had given similar advice to a law firm in December 2024.

At the time, the SRA told the firm that employees were permitted to perform reserved legal activities, provided they were under supervision. However, during court proceedings, the SRA reversed its position, conceding that the previous advice was incorrect.

The regulator has since launched an internal inquiry to determine whether this misleading advice was given to other firms.

SRA Chief Executive Paul Philip confirmed that “enquiries are ongoing” but has yet to issue a public clarification for the wider profession.

This regulatory inconsistency has left many practitioners unsure about who can legally file proceedings, sign court documents, or communicate directly with the court on behalf of clients — functions central to the conduct of litigation.

CILEX’s Response and Silence

CILEX has declined to explain why its online guidance was changed in December 2023, or whether it notified members of the correction.

The organisation has not denied that the earlier position was wrong. In a statement released after the Mazur judgment, CILEX said:

“We are aware that many of our members are concerned about the recent High Court ruling and what it means for them. We have pressed CILEx Regulation for urgent clarification and further guidance, which we are told is imminent. We will be updating our members as soon as this is available.”

CILEX added that the issue “extends beyond CILEX and affects the wider legal profession,” calling for a “coordinated response” from all professional bodies to ensure consistency in how litigation rights are understood and enforced.

No public announcement appears to have been made at the time of the December 2023 policy change — meaning many members may have continued to rely on the outdated guidance well into 2024.

Potential Legal and Criminal Consequences

The High Court’s interpretation carries serious implications. Section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007 makes it a criminal offence for an unauthorised person to carry on a reserved legal activity, punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and/or a fine.

Although prosecutions in this area are rare, the ruling suggests that any firm employing staff to conduct litigation without proper authorisation could, in theory, be exposed to enforcement action.

Legal commentators say the decision has effectively tightened the definition of “conducting litigation”, potentially encompassing tasks such as:

• Issuing or acknowledging court proceedings;
   
• Filing documents with the court;
   
• Corresponding with opposing parties; and
   
• Managing the procedural aspects of cases.
   

Law firms now face an immediate compliance question: whether their existing arrangements for paralegals, trainee solicitors, and legal executives conform to the statutory restrictions.

Industry Reaction

The judgment has sparked widespread anxiety among chartered legal executives, many of whom play leading roles in litigation teams.

Some members fear that firms may now restrict their duties to avoid regulatory exposure, undermining career progression and professional confidence.

One senior legal executive told Parachute Law:

“We’ve been told for years that working under a solicitor’s supervision meant we could handle litigation matters directly. If that was wrong, a lot of people have been put in a risky position through no fault of their own.”

The Law Society has also called for urgent clarification from the SRA and CILEX, emphasising that inconsistent regulatory interpretations risk creating uncertainty for clients and insurers.

How the Confusion Arose

Experts point to the blurred boundary between “conducting litigation” and “assisting with litigation” as the root of the problem.

While unqualified staff have always been able to assist authorised lawyers — for instance by preparing bundles, drafting letters, or carrying out research — they cannot take procedural steps in their own name or exercise independent legal judgment on litigation matters.

However, in modern legal practice, these lines are often crossed. Paralegals and legal executives frequently correspond directly with courts or sign documents on behalf of clients, often with their supervising partner’s implicit approval.

For years, regulators appeared to tolerate this pragmatic approach. The Mazur decision, however, has re-asserted a strict statutory interpretation, forcing the profession to revisit long-established habits.

The Path Forward: Clarity and Reform

In the wake of the ruling, CILEX and its regulator face mounting pressure to:

1. Issue definitive guidance to members about the scope of their rights;
    
2. Engage with the SRA and the Legal Services Board to harmonise interpretations across the profession; and
    
3. Clarify pathways for authorisation, including whether supervised litigation experience can count towards qualification as a solicitor or independent chartered legal executive advocate.
    

Some commentators argue that the case has exposed structural weaknesses in the Legal Services Act, which was designed to liberalise the legal market but has instead created overlapping categories of partial authorisation.

They suggest that the Ministry of Justice should review whether the current framework adequately reflects modern team-based legal practice, where litigation tasks are rarely confined to a single “authorised person.”

What Firms Should Do Now

In the absence of formal regulatory guidance, risk managers and compliance officers are urged to:

• Review all roles within litigation teams to identify whether any staff may be performing reserved activities without authorisation;
   
• Audit case management systems to confirm who is named on court filings or correspondence;
   
• Provide immediate training on what constitutes “conducting litigation” under the LSA; and
   
• Seek legal advice where uncertainty remains about a specific employee’s authority.
   

Insurers may also scrutinise professional indemnity policies to ensure they cover any historic work carried out by unauthorised individuals.

Broader Implications for Legal Education and Practice

Beyond compliance, the controversy highlights a deeper issue: the status of chartered legal executives within the legal hierarchy.

CILEX has long sought parity with solicitors, advocating for broader rights of audience and independent practice. The Mazur judgment, however, underscores the limits of that ambition without legislative reform.

Unless the Legal Services Act is amended or regulators create a clearer licensing regime, legal executives will remain dependent on specific authorisations rather than firm-based entitlements.

This outcome could deter new entrants from pursuing the CILEX route at a time when the profession faces acute shortages of affordable legal talent.

Conclusion

The revelation that CILEX had been giving wrong advice about litigation rights until December 2023 is more than a bureaucratic oversight — it is a warning about the complexity and fragmentation of legal regulation in England and Wales.

The High Court’s Mazur judgment has now drawn a hard line: only authorised individuals can conduct litigation, and supervision alone is not enough.

For CILEX, the challenge is not merely to correct its guidance but to rebuild confidence among its members and the wider profession. For regulators, the lesson is clear — clarity must come before convenience, and the integrity of reserved legal work depends on it.

Contact Us Now

Related Reading:

2025 Standard Crime Contract: Welcome Packs, Key Changes, and Resources for Providers

Civil News: Legal Aid Opportunities in Housing and Debt

Best Small Business and Start-Up Grants and Loans in the UK