The Law Society of England and Wales has confirmed it will work alongside the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to clarify the impact of the Mazur ruling on regulated professions. At the same time, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) has reassured firms that its position is “quite clear” regarding non-licensed individuals carrying out regulated work under supervision.
The recent High Court judgment established that legal executives cannot conduct litigation, even under the supervision of authorised firms. This has generated uncertainty for legal practitioners involved in reserved activities such as conveyancing and probate. Previously, SRA guidance indicated that employees of law firms could undertake reserved legal activities, while the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) advised until 2023 that its members working in solicitor firms were authorised to conduct litigation.
CILEX has since clarified its position to Today’s Conveyancer, stating:
“We are aware that many of our members are concerned about the recent High Court ruling in Mazur and what it means for them."
“We would like to reassure members working in both conveyancing and probate at solicitors’ firms that schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 expressly provides exemptions that mean they can handle those reserved activities – rather than just assist with them – under the supervision and direction of authorised lawyers (i.e., those with practice rights). There is no such exemption for the conduct of litigation.”
The Law Society also addressed member concerns regarding compliance with the Legal Services Act 2007. A spokesperson told Today’s Conveyancer:
“We understand that the ruling has raised some questions amongst members about their compliance with the Legal Services Act 2007."
“The case does not change the law but it does provide an important reminder of the limitations on the work non-qualified staff working within regulated organisations may undertake in the context of litigation."
“The court made clear that such staff cannot ‘conduct litigation."
“It is vital that across the profession, it is understood that litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 that may only be conducted by authorised persons, even within regulated entities. This restriction serves to protect the public from harm."
“Clarification on the question of where the boundary is between conducting litigation and assisting an authorised person would be welcome since this is an area which the court has not had the opportunity to consider in detail."
“This has added significance given the number of unregulated entities now providing services to litigants in person in connection with litigation."
“Further clarity for practitioners is needed and we will be working with the SRA to achieve this so that firms can review their processes and adapt them as necessary.”
Despite this, uncertainty continues, with practitioners erring on the side of caution after the High Court warned that firms allowing employees to carry out a reserved activity may commit a criminal offence.
Rob Hailstone, CEO and founder of the Bold Legal Group, commented:
“There is currently a lot of speculation about how the Mazur ruling will affect some legal practitioners, and until legal regulators and perhaps professional indemnity insurers offer guidance or words of wisdom, it would be sensible to remember that speculation only will remain."
“The ruling, whilst not specifically addressing conveyancing, does possibly highlight the current position as far as conveyancing and probate are concerned, in that, supervision cannot turn an unauthorised practitioner into someone entitled to carry out reserved legal activities.”
Hailstone advised firms to delegate reserved work to authorised professionals, particularly in remote-working arrangements:
“It would appear that the Mazur ruling is unlikely to stop unqualified consultant conveyancers working from home (as they can still assist with non-reserved tasks), but firms should consider that only authorised consultants can carry out reserved activities, that remote supervision must be demonstrably compliant and robust, and firms must ensure their particular consultant model will be able to withstand regulator and ultimately court scrutiny.”
Meanwhile, the CLC offered reassurance on the position of supervised work. Stephen Ward, director of strategy and external relations, explained:
“The CLC is quite clear that non-licensed individuals are able to undertake probate and conveyancing work in CLC-regulated practices under the supervision of qualified and regulated lawyers. The supervising lawyer, whether a CLC Licensed Conveyancer or Probate Practitioner or an Authorised Person licensed by another regulator, is responsible for the work of those they supervise. Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 supports this through exemptions in relation to the reserved activities of Reserved Instrument Activities (conveyancing) and probate to allow work under supervision.”
David Jabbari, CEO of conveyancing group MUVE, echoed the importance of understanding the statutory framework:
“It is vital to study Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 to understand the exemptions to the strict rules on reserved activities, and this will reveal important differences between litigation and conveyancing.
“This ruling is correct and does not change the underlying law at all. It is pretty poor legal thinking to assume wider areas are affected.
“In the latter a broader exemption for employees of authorised persons exists. The ruling affirms the underlying law and simply reminds people of the limited exemptions in the case of litigation.”
More: News & Blog Page
Source: Today's Conveyancer
