On March 31, 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down a landmark judgment in the case of CILEX & Ors v Mazur & Ors, a decision that has sent ripples through the UK’s legal services sector. The ruling, delivered by Lord Justice Colin Birss, with Lady Justice Andrews and Sir Geoffrey Vos concurring, has been hailed as the most consequential for legal services in recent memory. For many, it marks a moment of clarity and relief; for others, it leaves lingering questions about the future of legal practice and regulation.
At the heart of the case was the issue of delegation within law firms—specifically, whether authorised lawyers (such as solicitors and CILEX members) can lawfully delegate litigation tasks to unauthorised individuals, including paralegals and trainees. The uncertainty stemmed from a previous High Court decision, which had cast doubt on these long-standing working models and threatened to upend the structure of many legal teams across the country.
Lord Justice Birss’s judgment restored the principle of delegation, confirming that it is not only lawful but fundamental to the efficient delivery of legal services, provided it is properly supervised. As Birss put it, “An unauthorised person may lawfully perform any tasks, which are within the scope of the conduct of litigation, for and on behalf of an authorised individual such as a solicitor or appropriately authorised CILEX member, provided the authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person.” He added that this practice was “widespread, general and well-regulated” even before the Legal Services Act 2007 and that the legislation did not fundamentally alter this position.
The ruling comes with important caveats. Delegation, Birss emphasized, must be accompanied by “proper direction, management supervision and control,” with the details left to regulators. The degree of oversight required will always depend on the circumstances, and the standard of supervision is not simply whatever was done before September 2025. This nuanced approach is designed to address the evolving needs of a modern, diverse legal profession while maintaining high standards and consumer confidence.
For CILEX, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, the judgment represents a hard-fought victory. Chief executive Jennifer Coupland described it as “the most consequential judgment for legal services in recent history: It is a victory for CILEX members but also for access to justice, the interests of consumers and the encouragement of a thriving, diverse and competitive legal sector.” She continued, “CILEX is delighted that this common-sense judgment recognises our solutions, bringing much needed clarity to the conduct of litigation, and the role of authorised and unauthorised professionals. It means the profession can now operate effectively, maintaining high standards and consumer confidence whilst opening up legal services to alternative business models and providers.”
Coupland also highlighted the role of CILEX professionals, noting they are “well qualified, highly skilled, hugely experienced and, given they are more likely to come from groups traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession, bring different perspectives to their work.” She acknowledged the profound impact the previous uncertainty had on many members and expressed hope that they could now move forward with their careers. Coupland added that CILEX would lobby the government to address regulatory shortcomings in the Legal Services Act and awaits updated guidance from its regulator, CILEx Regulation.
The ruling was met with broad support across the legal sector. According to the Association of Costs Lawyers, the decision “should calm the legal market” and underscores the responsibility of authorised persons to supervise litigation. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) welcomed the “clear direction from the Court of Appeal,” stating, “The clarity the judgment provides will enable us to review our guidance and update it where necessary. We will do this as soon as possible. We will be working closely with other regulators and organisations to make sure there is consistency and clarity for everyone.” The Law Society also confirmed it would update its guidance and practice note to ensure alignment with the ruling.
Paul Bennett, a regulatory expert and partner at Bennett Briegal, commented, “The decision is clear. The regulators opposed to the delegation principle on which so many law firms relied, seemingly forever, were wrong. The High Court was wrong. The Court of Appeal has been explicit: delegation requires proper direction, management, supervision and control. The authorised individual must put in place appropriate supervisory arrangements for non-admitted persons. The level of oversight must match the circumstances. In short, the principle of delegation is restored, but the standard of supervision is not ‘whatever we were doing before September 2025.’”
However, not all responses were unequivocally positive. Julia Mazur and Jerome Stuart, parties to the case, expressed concerns that the judgment leaves unresolved questions about where delegation ends and “acting as a solicitor” begins. In a statement through Blind Justice UK, they warned, “If the judgment does not clearly define where delegation ends and ‘acting as a solicitor’ begins, it leaves firms, regulators, and clients to navigate that boundary without clear guidance.” They also announced a national public panel series to address these questions, focusing on accountability and qualifications in legal work.
For many legal professionals, the judgment brought a sense of relief after months of uncertainty and disruption. Iain Miller, head of the legal services regulatory team at Kingsley Napley (who advised CILEX pro bono), remarked, “There will be many individuals and businesses, including those operating in the not-for-profit sector, who will be relieved by this outcome. It will also be a relief for many members of my profession, be they solicitors or their firms, who have had to grapple with the uncertainty and disruption which was caused by last year’s judgment.”
The legal battle was not without its casualties. Social media reactions included notes of sympathy for those who lost their jobs or suffered reputational and mental health damage during the period of uncertainty. Stefanie Smith, a non-practising CILEX Fellow, commented, “This is a great result for many. Sadly, it isn't so easy for all of those who lost their jobs and had their reputations (and mental health) damaged. The universal damage to members is irreparable.”
Justice minister Sarah Sackman had previously acknowledged the wide-reaching implications of the Mazur judgment, stating in November 2025 that it had “broad implications for the legal profession and the wider justice system.” She added that officials were working closely with legal services representative bodies, regulators, and stakeholders to assess the potential consequences.
The appeal was supported by CILEX, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, and the Law Centres Network, while the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society argued against it. The oversight regulator, the Legal Services Board, made general submissions. The legal team supporting CILEX acted pro bono, a fact Coupland described as a testament to the importance of the case.
The judgment, delivered just five weeks after the hearing, underscores the urgency and significance of the issue for the profession. As Sir Colin Birss noted, “it is hard to see why this litigation went on as long as it did.” For now, the Court of Appeal's decision has restored stability to the sector, but the conversation about the boundaries of delegation, supervision, and regulation in legal services is far from over.