The Legal Services Board has confirmed it has received an application from CILEx Regulation to enable its regulated community to obtain standalone litigation practice rights and has said it will launch a review to examine how approved regulators and regulatory bodies ensured information it shared was accurate and reliable in the wake of the High Court’s Mazur ruling that legal executives cannot conduction litigation, even under supervision.
As firms pulled legal executives from casework amid concerns about the potential wider impact of the ruling, The Solicitors Regulation Authority and Law Society have stressed the ruling doesn’t change the law as it stands. The Council for Licensed Conveyancers has also unequivocally confirmed licensed professions including conveyancing and wills and probate are not affected.
The Legal Services Board (LSB) has shared its views, after acknowledging the ongoing discussions related to the impact of the ruling. An LSB spokesperson said:
“On 9 October 2025, the LSB met senior executives from all relevant approved regulators and representative bodies.
“At our meeting, we emphasised that lawyers and legal professionals conducting litigation need clear and accurate information. Furthermore, all regulated individuals must work within their authorised scope of practice. We stressed the importance of collaboration between the relevant bodies to ensure a consistent approach across the sector.
“The attendees agreed to work together on these issues. They also told us that they had reviewed their current guidance. If needed, they had issued more advice to provide clear and accurate information.
“Meanwhile, the LSB has received an application from CILEx Regulation. It is to enable its regulated community to obtain standalone litigation practice rights. We have published the application on our website. We are prioritising the application within our statutory process.”
Responding to the LSB’s announcement, Law Society of England and Wales president Mark Evans reiterated the judgment does not change statutory requirements, but said it is important to have clarity and consistence across all regulators in the form of updated guidance. He added:
“This guidance needs to be available quickly, so our members can review their processes and adapt them as necessary.”
The Society of Licensed Conveyancers (SLC) has also offered reassurance to its members, welcoming ‘the clear direction’ provided by the CLC. SLC chair Simon Law said:
“The Society was confident that Mazur had no impact on conveyancing or probate, and it is reassuring that the CLC made its position clear on this issue. Schedule 3, section 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 states that non-licensed individuals are able to undertake probate and conveyancing work in regulated practices under the supervision of qualified and regulated lawyers. This is enabled through exemptions in relation to the reserved activities of Reserved Instrument Activities (conveyancing) and probate which allow work to be undertaken under supervision. Licensed conveyancer firms can go about their business without any concern over the Mazur ruling.”
STEP has similarly moved to clarify the position of members in relation to the performance of reserved legal activities as defined in the Legal Services Act 2007 recognising there is a ‘tension’ between the provisions of the Legal Services Act (LSA) and the Non-Contentious Probate Rules (NCPR).
“The LSA expressly provides for certain exempt individuals to carry out probate activities under supervision – typically employees working under the direction of an authorised person. However, the NCPR define a ‘probate practitioner’ specifically as an authorised person for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007.
“This definition has the effect of excluding exempt individuals from carrying out activities under the NCPR, even where they would otherwise be permitted to do so under the LSA.
“STEP intends to call on the government to amend the NCPR so that they align with the provisions of the LSA.
“In the meantime, STEP wishes to draw members’ attention to the narrow definition within the NCPR. STEP advises that only authorised persons should undertake probate activities and where members are in doubt, they should also consult with their professional indemnity provider.
“Any complaint or alleged breach will be reviewed by STEP on a case-by-case basis.”
