Court of Appeal Clarifies Who Can Carry Out Litigation Work Under Supervision

A significant Court of Appeal ruling has brought much-needed clarity to the legal profession on who can undertake litigation tasks and on what basis. In the case commonly referred to as Mazur (CILEX & Ors v Mazur & Ors), the court overturned the earlier High Court decision that had caused uncertainty across the sector. The judgment is an important development for CILEX, for law firms, and for the wider delivery of legal services. It confirms that individuals who are not personally authorised to conduct litigation may still carry out litigation-related work, provided they do so on behalf of, and under the supervision of, an authorised lawyer.

The earlier High Court decision had raised concern across the profession because it appeared to cast doubt on long-established working practices within legal teams. Many firms rely on paralegals, trainees, CILEX professionals and other non-authorised staff to assist with litigation work as part of supervised legal practice.

What the Court of Appeal Confirmed

The Court of Appeal has now made clear that delegation of this kind is lawful, as long as the authorised person remains accountable and proper supervision is in place.

In practical terms, the court confirmed that:

• a non-authorised person can carry out tasks that fall within the conduct of litigation when acting for an authorised lawyer;
• responsibility for that work remains with the authorised individual;
• the key issue is whether there are suitable systems of supervision, management and oversight in place.

The court also rejected the narrower interpretation adopted in the earlier decision, which had attempted to draw a distinction between simply supporting litigation and actually conducting it under supervision.

Moving Away from a Narrow Interpretation

The leading judgment explained that the authorised individual remains the person legally responsible for the conduct of litigation, even where tasks are delegated. The person carrying out the work under supervision is not, by that fact alone, committing an offence or acting unlawfully. Importantly, the court did not require a rigid rule that every step must receive advance approval. Instead, the level of oversight will depend on the nature of the work. More routine matters may justify a lighter-touch supervisory approach, while more complex or higher-risk tasks will require closer involvement.

A Flexible Approach to Supervision

That flexible approach will be welcomed by many in practice, particularly firms and organisations that depend on properly managed teams to deliver legal services efficiently. CILEX described the ruling as a major moment not only for its members but also for the legal services market as a whole. The decision is likely to be seen as an endorsement of modern legal practice, where work is often delivered by teams with a mix of qualifications, roles and levels of experience.

What This Means for Law Firms

For many CILEX members and other legal professionals, the uncertainty following the earlier ruling had real career and operational consequences. The Court of Appeal’s decision should now allow those individuals to continue working within supervised litigation structures with greater confidence.

The judgment may also be welcomed by not-for-profit organisations and other providers who depend on delegated legal work to deliver services in a cost-effective way. Although the Court of Appeal has given a clearer legal framework, the judgment also leaves room for regulators to provide more detailed guidance on what “appropriate” supervision looks like in practice.

Impact on the Legal Sector

That means firms should not treat this as a green light to loosen standards. The ruling supports delegation, but only where proper systems, training, oversight and accountability are maintained. The Law Society and the Solicitors Regulation Authority have both indicated that they will now revise their guidance. Further clarification from regulators will be important in helping firms assess whether their current supervisory arrangements are compliant.