Court of Appeal ruling favours employers

Richard Eaton, Head of Property Litigation at Birketts LLP, said “The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur will be welcomed by employers across the legal sector. By confirming that non-authorised staff may lawfully carry out litigation tasks under the supervision of an authorised professional, the court has restored long established delegation models that many organisations have long relied upon to operate efficiently.” The ruling brings important clarity from an employment perspective, especially for firms employing paralegals, trainees, and junior staff in fee-earning positions. The High Court’s previous decision had raised concerns about role scope and disciplinary risks for employees performing tasks that were previously viewed as lawful.

Eaton further explained that “it is supervision and retained responsibility rather than the individual status of the employee that is critical.” However, he noted that this judgment does not provide unchecked freedom for informal or poorly structured supervision arrangements. Employers must ensure that delegation is appropriately managed and supervision is meaningful, alongside clarifying role limits for their staff. This serves as a crucial prompt for HR departments to review job descriptions, supervision policies, and training frameworks to ensure regulatory compliance in their hiring practices.

Sam Froud, Partner in the SIPPs team at Birketts LLP, remarked on the importance of the ruling, stating “It was very pleasing to hear that CILEX was successful in its appeal against the decision handed down in the High Court in the Mazur case.” He emphasised the significance of this outcome for CILEX lawyers, many of whom are exceptionally skilled and hardworking professionals. Froud noted that the ruling underscores the original intent of the Legal Services Act, which did not aim to exclude unauthorised personnel from litigation tasks under supervision. CILEX CEO, Jennifer Coupland, welcomed the ruling and stated that CILEX would now focus on lobbying for reforms in the Legal Services Act 2007.

Froud concluded with a call for unity, urging that “as a profession we should be working together, rather than pulling apart, which is in the ultimate interests of the consumer.” The ruling by the Court of Appeal not only stabilises staffing structures within legal firms but also poses broader implications for workplace planning and employee relations in the legal sector.

Copyright & permissions