Message to members – Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys: FAQs

These FAQs are regularly updated with the latest information available at the time. If you’re unsure about any of the information included in these FAQs, please contact us.

Last updated 29 June 2026

Post Appeal judgment FAQs

1. What happens now CILEX’s appeal has been successful?

This is 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.

The judgment has confirmed that the current wording of the legislation, when properly interpreted and applied, permits unauthorised persons to conduct litigation under supervision from an authorised person. CILEX will therefore be working with regulatory bodies, the Legal Services Board (LSB), other professional bodies and the government to ensure that any new associated guidance is consistent.

We know that CRL is working with regulators and stakeholders to update their guidance to reflect the full implications of the appeal judgment. In the meantime, please refer to CRL’s Mazur information hub

2. Now the Mazur decision has been overturned, do I still need to get practice rights?

CILEX believes that the acquisition of practice rights is still an appropriate level of authorisation for its members to achieve within their area of specialism. That was why, when our qualifications were revised, leading to the introduction of the CILEX Professional Qualification (CPQ), practice rights were made integral to that qualification.

Having Practice Rights enables you to carry on the conduct of litigation in your own right, including being responsible for the work of unauthorised staff to whom you can delegate. So, gaining practice rights remains an important potential step to advancing your career. For pre-CPQ CILEX Lawyers, the need to acquire those rights remains a matter of individuals’ professional judgment and guidance from CRL which is independent of CILEX.

3. I began the process of gaining practice rights due to Mazur but now feel I don’t need them. Can I get a refund?

The process for the acquisition and award of practice rights is a regulatory one and any such request should be directed to CILEx Regulation.

4. Your communications around practice rights have not always been consistent – do you accept CILEX got it wrong in the past?

CILEX’s intention has always been to give sound guidance and support on practice rights, based on the latest information and guidance provided by our independent regulator CILEx Regulation.

As many across the profession, including the Legal Services Consumer Panel, have pointed out, the appeal revealed a fundamental failure of the regulatory framework. The evidence presented demonstrated that while organisations across the sector – including CILEX – were acting in good faith, they were attempting to work with a framework that lacked clarity and was not fit for purpose. The judgment itself rightly labels that attempt as a ‘scramble’.

We brought this appeal to try and get certainty for our members so that they can move on with their careers. We will now look to lobby the government to address some of the regulatory shortcomings highlighted by this process. We will also be working closely with our independent regulator CILEx Regulation to improve alignment in communications and guidance to CILEX members.

Mazur appeal webinar: Questions answered

1. How will the Mazur ruling affect members’ trainees in terms of showing advocacy/litigation evidence within their portfolio?

The ruling does not change the requirement and method of demonstrating competence where advocacy or litigation rights are being applied for, which existed before. However, it does reinforce the importance of ensuring that any evidence submitted relates to activity lawfully undertaken under appropriate authorisation or supervision at the time.

CRL has reviewed their guidance to ensure applicants’ are clear on:

what constitutes valid advocacy/litigation experience
how to evidence supervised work appropriately
how to demonstrate competence where court attendance is restricted

They issued updated guidance on 29 May 2026. Read more

2. What were the costs incurred to the profession in relation to the Mazur appeal?

CILEX was represented pro bono by Iain Miller, Stephen Nelson and Phoebe Alexander of Kingsley Napley, supported by Greg Cox of Simpson Millar, and Nick Bacon KC, Helen Evans KC, Faye Metcalfe and Teen Jui Chow of 4 New Square Chambers. All parties to the appeal agreed that the proceedings would be on a costs-neutral basis.

The Court expressed the hope that Mrs Mazur’s costs at the appeal would be met as she was acting as a Litigant in Person and CILEX agreed to meet those modest costs.

3. Why did CILEX originally agree with the decision and refer members to the regulator?

In the immediate period following the judgment, the wider legal sector took the view that the law had not changed. As an approved regulator, CILEX followed this view, but it became clear very quickly that the application of the law in practice had changed radically. CILEX responded quickly, gathering evidence of individual and system impacts, and campaigning across government for this to be recognised and changed. The reality of the situation is that it took a court of appeal application and subsequent successful hearing to provide the correct interpretation of the law.

4. Why were members previously led to believe litigation rights would be automatic?

CILEX has never stated or implied that litigation rights are automatic. This would be contrary to the regulatory framework under the Legal Services Act.

It is true to say that the CPQ, as the recalibrated CILEX qualification, has been designed to integrate Practice Rights (in your specialist area), to sit alongside the reserved legal activity of administering oaths.

5. Is CILEX qualification equivalent to solicitor rights?

No. It is a separate qualification framework. Transfer routes exist (e.g. SQE), but they are distinct regulatory systems.

6. What’s the likelihood of this issue arising again?

The Mazur judgment has clarified key legal interpretations, reducing the likelihood of similar challenges and uncertainties arising any time soon. However, the judgment did highlight the shortcomings of the over-arching regulatory framework and the Legal Services Act. CILEX will therefore be working collaboratively across the sector to develop an improved future framework in anticipation and to be ready for a legislative window if and when it arises.

7. What is CILEX doing to address member concerns relating to the perception and recognition of CILEX professionals?

CILEX recognises concerns about:

professional recognition compared with solicitors
perceived barriers in practice recognition
the impact on career progression and confidence

Work is ongoing to:

strengthen recognition of CILEX practitioners across the profession
improve clarity around rights and scope of practice
ensure members are not unfairly disadvantaged by historical regulatory ambiguity

Chartered Legal Executives are highly skilled legal professionals, and we continue to advocate for equality of recognition where legally and regulatorily possible.

8. Can Chartered Legal Executives use “CILEX Lawyer” membership title?

If you are a Chartered Legal Executive working in litigation, you will be able to use the membership title CILEX Lawyer if you:

have obtained additional practice rights in litigation from CILEx Regulation; or
have declared you will obtain additional practice rights in litigation from CILEx Regulation before the end of 2026; or
you hold a practising certificate and are authorised by an alternative regulator to undertake litigation (for example, the SRA)

You can determine whether you meet the requirements to use the title CILEX Lawyer, by completing the CILEX Lawyer Eligibility Checker, but please note that CILEX Lawyer is a membership title, and cannot be used as a replacement for the authorisation itself.

9. Can you provide further details about the Advocacy Course and what this actually involves?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

The Advocacy Course is designed to ensure members meet the required standard for rights of audience. It typically includes:

courtroom advocacy skills training (interim applications, hearings, submissions)
preparation and case theory development
examination of ethical and procedural obligations in court
assessed practical advocacy exercises (often including mock hearings)

It is structured to bridge the gap between legal knowledge and safe, effective court advocacy practice.

Members are assessed against competencies required for rights of audience rather than simply attendance. Further details are at Become a Chartered Legal Executive Advocate.

See the list of CRL Approved providers here.

10. Will CILEx Regulation be responding to emails sent prior to the Court of Appeal decision?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Yes. CILEx Regulation continues to respond to member queries. However, due to the volume of correspondence following the judgment and ongoing coordination, response times may be longer than usual.

Members are encouraged to refer to updated published guidance and FAQs , as this may answer many queries more quickly.

11. How much income/fees have you received in relation to members applying for litigation rights since the Mazur decision?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Application fee income is received by CILEx Regulation Ltd (CRL) to cover the cost of application authorisation. CILEX does not directly retain or operate these regulatory application fees as organisational income.

Fees are set and managed to cover the cost of assessment, administration, and regulatory oversight of applications. CRL charges a fee of £450 for each litigation practice rights application. The fee covers the direct costs of processing and assessing (this includes staff and assessor costs) the application as well as associated overheads. CRL has calculated that the costs associated with the Mazur decision have exceeded the income generated through fees.

12. Where does Mazur leave us in terms of advocacy in the County Court in family proceedings?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Members can appear in the Family court – it is an extension of the exemptions in the Legal Services Act – schedule 3 Para 1 (7), provided it is not in front of a single lay magistrate or bench of lay magistrates.

The 2007 Act enables individuals who are not authorised for a reserved legal activity, to undertake in the limited instances where they are exempt.

Schedule 3, paragraph 1(7) of the 2007 Act contains a provision that, whilst it is not specific to our members, applies to any person employed to assist in the conduct of litigation and acting under the supervision of an authorised person who can conduct litigation. This enables such an employee to appear in chambers hearings only in the county court and High Court.

Following the creation of the single Family Court, these rights have subsequently been extended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Schedule 10, Part 2, Paragraph 98(1)) to apply in the Family Court (save for before a single Lay Magistrate or bench of Lay Magistrates).

The Courts also have discretion to allow any person a right of audience before it in a particular set of proceedings, in accordance with Schedule 3, paragraph 1(2) of the 2007 Act.

13. I cannot access an advocacy course – are further courses being run?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Yes. Additional courses are being planned and delivered on a rolling basis depending on demand and capacity.

Members are encouraged to:

register interest with CILEX
ensure their eligibility status is up to date
monitor official communications for new course dates

14. Can CLEs attend hearings behind Counsel?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Yes. Supporting counsel in court (e.g. attending to assist, take notes, manage instructions) is generally permissible where appropriate.

However, CLEs without rights of audience:

must not address the court
must not conduct advocacy activities

15. What counts as advocacy experience for the portfolio?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Typically, acceptable evidence may include:

preparing and delivering submissions in court (where authorised)
advocacy in tribunals or hearings within permitted scope
mock advocacy exercises (where real experience is limited)
observing hearings with reflective analysis
supervised advocacy tasks where properly recorded

16. Post-decoupling, how is advocacy rights process changing?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

The introduction of ‘litigation-only’ practice rights was in recognition that not all members required advocacy rights, as well as litigation rights. The combined litigation & advocacy route to practice rights remains. The standalone advocacy rights process has not changed.

17. What advocacy rights does a Chartered Legal Executive have?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

A Chartered Legal Executive:

does not automatically have rights of audience
may apply separately for advocacy rights
may undertake certain limited advocacy depending on authorisation and qualification route

A Chartered Legal Executive who does not have advocacy rights may appear in proceedings which are not reserved family proceedings and are being heard in chambers:

i. in the High Court or county court, or
ii. in the family court by a judge who is not a lay justice, or by two or more judges at least one of whom is not a lay justice, provided they are under the instruction and supervision of an authorised individual.

18. Can CRL grant litigation rights via grandfathering?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

No. As a regulator, CRL’s role is to protect consumers’ interests by ensuring high standards of professional conduct and competence. Therefore, we cannot award practice rights based on length of service alone by way of some sort of grandfathering arrangement. This risks diminishing standards, presents potential consumer risk and undermines those who have successfully been awarded practice rights. Therefore, we need to maintain an authorisation process that provides the necessary assurances. Over 1,000 CLEs have now been awarded litigation practice rights in the last six months, which is testament to their skills, experience and resilience in what has been a challenging time.

19. Will there be a proportionate route for long-serving Fellows?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

This is under active consideration in ongoing regulatory discussions.

20. How are long standing Fellows being supported to gain Practice Rights?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

We recognise the strength of feeling among long-standing Fellows and the concerns about historic clarity around practice rights.

Key points:

the regulatory framework for legal services has evolved significantly since early qualification routes
CILEX is engaging with CRL to ensure transitional fairness is properly considered
there is no automatic exemption based solely on length of qualification or experience
however, experience is a key factor in evidencing competence through portfolios

We do not underestimate the impact this has on members who have practised for many years under earlier assumptions, and continues to advocate for practical, proportionate pathways where possible within regulatory constraints.

In response to Mazur, CRL have made temporary adjustments to the evidential requirements for the portfolio route. These adjustments are intended to provide a proportionate and supportive approach for experienced CLEs seeking litigation practice rights via the portfolio route, whilst maintaining the integrity and rigour of the authorisation process. Further details can be found here. More information will also be available in the refreshed CILEX Practice Rights Hub which is due to launch mid-late July.

21. Can a recently qualified CILEX Lawyer practice non-reserved work (e.g. education law)?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

There are no restrictions on a CILEX Lawyer carrying out non-reserved work, though they must act competently, in the best interest of their client, as outlined principle 5 CILEX Code of Conduct, specifically:

5.3 act only on matters that are within your competence

5.4 not act for a client in an area of law where you have insufficient knowledge or experience.

A recently qualified CILEX Lawyer is an authorised person, able to undertake the reserved legal activities of the administration of oaths and, if either a CPQ graduate or holder of other practice rights, another reserved legal activity those rights confer.

22. Impact on in-house legal professionals

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

In-house practitioners may continue to:

provide legal advice to their organisation
manage internal legal functions
instruct external counsel

However, reserved activities (litigation/advocacy) still require appropriate authorisation through obtaining the relevant Practice Rights.

23. Status while waiting for rights or course completion

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

You remain authorised only to the extent of your current rights. You cannot exercise rights not yet granted. You may undertake preparatory or supervised work, but not reserved acts without authorisation.

24. Can Planning/Highways Lawyers attend Magistrates’ Court for Stopping Up Orders?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Attendance depends on whether they hold rights of audience for those proceedings. Without rights, attendance to conduct advocacy is not permitted, even where matters are uncontested.

25. Do Fellows need litigation practice certificates?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Litigation practice rights are required if a CLE wishes to conduct litigation without the supervision of an appropriately authorised individual. However, the Court of Appeal judgment clarified that an unauthorised person can 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. For more information, see our guidance.

Fellows do not need litigation practice rights to conduct litigation under supervision. But if they wish to conduct litigation activities independently, or delegate to/supervise unauthorised persons, litigation practice rights are required.

26. Can a paralegal conduct litigation if CILEX qualified?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Only if they hold appropriate litigation rights. CILEX qualification alone does not automatically confer litigation authority.

27. Can Chartered Legal Executives supervise unqualified staff?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

CLEs can supervise unauthorised persons in the conduct of litigation only if they themselves are authorised to conduct litigation independently by having the appropriate practice rights.

28. Is supervision sufficient without rights yet?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

The Court of Appeal Judgment clarified that an authorised individual can delegate tasks to an unauthorised individual as long as appropriate supervisory arrangements are in place and the authorised individual retains responsibility for ’carrying on’ the conduct of litigation. For more information about effective supervisory arrangements, please see CRL’s guidance.

Supervision requirements vary by employer and regulatory status. There is no single standard such as “monthly review” that automatically satisfies regulatory requirements.

Read the new SRA guidance on effective supervision.

29. Do Fellows still need practice rights?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Only if they wish to conduct reserved activities independently (litigation/advocacy), separate practice rights are still required.

30. Can Fellows undertake tribunal work without portfolio fit?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

CILEX members can rely on applicable tribunal rules, many of which permit a party to appoint a representative who is not an authorised person.

In relation to Employment Tribunal claims, Fellows can represent clients and supervise others working on such claims regardless of whether they have the right to conduct litigation or rights of audience. For more information, please see CRL’s guidance.

Tribunal work may not always align neatly with existing portfolio frameworks. CILEX is aware of this issue and continues to review whether more tailored pathways are needed.

31. Is it clear yet what litigation tasks trainees can conduct under an authorised person?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Broadly, trainees can carry out litigation tasks that are delegated and properly supervised by an authorised person, provided those tasks do not themselves constitute the reserved legal activity unless authorised.

The appropriate level of supervision is for the professional judgment of the supervisor to determine.

32. Can Court of Protection work be done under Probate Practice Rights or does it require Litigation Practice Rights?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

CoP practice is extremely varied and practitioners, including CLEs, often have different professional backgrounds and experience.

In large, specialised practices, practitioners may concentrate solely on CoP work, whilst in other practices they may undertake a mix of CoP work alongside other areas of Family or Civil Practice. In other practices, it may be part of what is often referred to as ‘Private Client’ work, that is dealing mainly with high net-worth individuals and their property, trusts, tax arrangements etc which may not involve much court-based work. In terms of the most appropriate litigation pathway, Family Litigation or Civil Litigation are the closest match to the work undertaken for the CoP.

It is up to an individual CLE to decide which of the two litigation pathways best reflects the work they undertake in their role. CRL will recognise 2 years’ experience of working in a CoP role as meeting the eligibility criteria, along with 5 years overall legal experience, for either the Portfolio or ULaw routes to authorisation.

Discussion between CRL and the CoP remains ongoing to determine if and how this particular pathway might be enhanced.

33. Was there any point in becoming a CILEX Litigator given the appeal outcome?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

CILEX Lawyers play a unique role in the legal system. Ironically, the Mazur appeal has shone a light on this, both historically and for the future. More than a thousand Fellows have gained Practice Rights since last September enabling them to carry on the conduct of litigation independently as authorised persons in their own right, able to delegate conduct of litigation to others. This is not only important developmentally for individuals but also enables them to add value to their firms as well.

34. Can Fellows still conduct advocacy or do we need separate rights?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

On qualification, Fellows only have limited rights of audience in the county court, namely the right to appear in an unopposed application for adjournment or an application for judgement by consent. This right is set out in the County Court (Right of Audience) Direction 1978. However, this only applies to those Fellows employed by a solicitor.

Under regulation 38(1)(b) of the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989, a Fellow may represent an appellant before a Legal Aid Area Committee at the hearing of an appeal against a decision affecting the applicant’s right to receive legal aid. Chartered Legal Executives who are not employed by a solicitor are not restricted from appearing. However, given a Chartered Legal Executives has no automatic right to conduct litigation, it should only really be applicable to Fellows who have obtained the further rights pertaining to litigation.

Fellows can obtain practice rights in litigation for civil, family and criminal law. Read more about Rights of Audience and Advocacy here.

35. How does the ruling align with the Legal Services Act 2007?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

The Court of Appeal has provided an authoritative ruling of the tasks an unauthorised person can lawfully perform within the scope of the conduct of litigation for and on behalf of an authorised individual. It has also proposed a list of litigation work which is unlikely to fall within the statutory definition of ‘conduct of litigation’ (see paragraph 193 of the judgment).

The appeal ruling clarifies the alignment of practice with the framework created by the Legal Services Act framework, namley:

Chartered Legal Executives are able to conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised person who is responsible and accountable for the overall carrying on of litigation.
That supervision must be real and proportionate to the circumstances
delegation must not amount to unlawful exercise of reserved functions
regulation must protect consumers while enabling authorised professionals to practise

36. Position of Chartered Paralegals post-appeal

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Like any unauthorised person, following the appeal judgment, Chartered Paralegals are able to conduct litigation under supervision of an authorised person, providing the authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person.

37. Do I need litigation practice rights to sign probate statements or apply for grants?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

You will be able to carry out these activities without Probate Practice Rights, whilst acting under supervision of someone who holds practice rights. If you want to operate without supervision, you’ll need to acquire probate practice rights.

38. Can Planning Lawyers attend inquiries without litigation rights?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

This is dependent on the status of the particular inquiry. It is advisable to check the relevant rules and any directions issued on behalf of the enquiry. For example, rule 11(3) The Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 provides that ‘Any person entitled or permitted to appear may do so on his own behalf or be represented by any other person’.

39. What impact does the appeal have on day-to-day work?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

The appeal clarifies what unauthorised individuals can and cannot do. The judgment also underlines that effective supervisory arrangements need to be put in place by an authorised person when delegating a task.

40. What level of supervision is expected?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

The Court of Appeal concluded that only an authorised person may “carry on” the conduct of litigation, these words refer to the direction and control of, and responsibility for, the relevant tasks. The work involved in the litigation can be undertaken by unauthorised staff under supervision of an authorised person who is responsible and accountable for the overall carrying on of litigation.

The level of supervision must be real and proportionate and, to determine that it is, firms and supervisors should consider (this is a guide and not an exhaustive list):

a. The inherent risk presented by the task or litigation. More complex tasks or litigation is likely to require closer supervision, whereas routine tasks are likely to require lighter supervision.

b. The unauthorised individual’s relative experience in the task delegated to them. Less experienced individuals are likely to require closer supervision than more experienced individuals.

c. The supervisor’s capacity. An authorised individual needs to have capacity appropriately to oversee tasks delegated to unauthorised individuals. An authorised individual, for example is unlikely to be able effectively to oversee multiple complex cases.

d. The supervisor’s expertise. The authorised individual will need to be appropriately qualified to establish what is adequate in terms of the supervision arrangements, as well as to oversee the work. The authorised individual should have sufficient experience and competence in the specific area of law they are supervising.

e. Appropriate recording. Supervisory arrangements need to be auditable and documented, proportionate to the risk posed. Read the new SRA guidance on effective supervision and the CRL guidance.

41. Difference between Chartered Legal Executive and Litigator?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

A Chartered Legal Executive is not authorised to carry on the conduct of litigation in his/her own right without acquiring litigation practice rights. Until then, a CLE may only conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised person (the Litigator) who is responsible and accountable for the overall carrying on of litigation and whose name is on the file as such.

42. Can CLEs be scrutinised by regulators for supervision compliance?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Yes. Firms and individuals may be subject to regulatory oversight to ensure that appropriate supervision is in place. Where it is found not to be, regulatory enforcement rules and processes will be deployed, potentially leading to referral to the Disciplinary Tribunal for determination. Where it appears that an unauthorised person has taken control and responsibility for the tasks that amount to the conduct of litigation, disciplinary proceedings may be taken against the unauthorised person and, where appropriate, the relevant authorised person and/or firm where they are regulated by CILEx Regulation.

43. Can PI files be under a CLE with supervision?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Yes, but:

conduct must be properly supervised
reserved legal activities must be carried out only by authorised individuals

44. What can be done under supervision (issuing claims etc.)?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Under supervision, individuals may:

draft and prepare claims
assist with issuing processes
manage procedural steps

But the authorised person must retain ultimate responsibility for conduct.

45. What does the legal executive qualification actually allow?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Qualifying as a Chartered Legal Executive provides recognised and regulated legal qualification. It enables CLEs to undertake many of the same activities as a solicitor, although some of those, such as the conduct of litigation, only under supervision. This is because carrying on the conduct of litigation is a Reserved Legal Activity under the Legal Services Act for which ‘authorisation’ is required.

On qualification, CLEs are authorised in relation to one reserved legal activity: the administration of oaths (by virtue of Part 1 of Schedule 4 of the Legal Services Act 2007). Fellows are Authorised Persons under section 18 of the Legal Services Act 2007. This is an independent practice right so you can administer oaths whether or not you are employed by a solicitor. The right to administer oaths also includes the right to swear affidavits and sign statutory declarations, as they are all sworn or made under oath. A Fellow who has the right to administer oaths is also entitled to use the title ‘commissioner for oaths’. When administering oaths or taking declarations, you should include “commissioner for oaths, and Fellow of CILEX” after your name.

Upon qualification as a Chartered Legal Executive, a limited number of rights of audience are also conferred in the county court, namely the right to appear in an unopposed application for adjournment or an application for judgement by consent. This right is set out in the County Court (Right of Audience) Direction 1978. However, this only applies to those Fellows employed by a solicitor.

Chartered Legal Executives can go on to obtain practice rights in litigation for civil, family and criminal law.

46. Can CLEs submit probate applications to HMCTS/HMRC?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Only if authorised under probate practice rights or appropriate supervision arrangements.

47. Can CLEs give legal advice in their own name?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Yes. Giving legal advice is not a reserved legal activity for which authorisation is required. But CLEs must comply with the relevant parts of the Code of Conduct requiring them to only act within their levels of competence and, in particular:

a. paragraph 5.6, which states that you must not act in a matter where you do not have the right or are not authorised to act

b. Principle 8, which states that you must act effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles

c. where applicable, paragraph 8.2, which states that you must ensure that you properly supervise tasks that you have asked others to perform on your behalf, recognising that you remain accountable for any such work

d. paragraph 8.6 which, states that you must adhere to effective procedures to ensure compliance with your legal and regulatory obligations.

48. Can CLEs send correspondence in their own name?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Yes, where appropriate, but must not misrepresent:

status
authorisation
rights of audience

49. Local authority litigation conduct

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Where CLEs are authorised persons within a local authority:

they may continue conducting litigation within their delegated authority
Mazur reinforces the importance of clear authorisation trails

50. Completion of COP1 forms by FCILEX

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Completion depends on authorisation. If litigation/conduct rights are not held:

the authorised person must sign and take responsibility

51. Bills of costs / signing authority

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Typically:

solicitors or authorised persons sign formal bills
CLEs may prepare bills if authorised internally

52. Does litigation certificate process remain the same?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

Yes. The application process for acquiring litigation practice rights remains in place. Temporary adjustments to the portfolio evidence requirements have been extended until 30 September 2026.Further information can be found here.

CRL is conducting a lessons learnt review into its response to Mazur to identify where processes may be improved. The review has included talking to applicants to understand their experience.

53. How to obtain litigation rights without court experience?

Answer provided by CRL, in conjunction with CILEX

The availability of the standalone litigation practice rights route means obtaining litigation practice rights is no longer dependent on being able to satisfy the advocacy practice rights requirements. Further detail on how to obtain standalone litigation practice rights can be found here.