Questions about the implications of the Mazur case?

The judge in the case of Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP & and the SRA & The Law Society  found that non-regulated individuals cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision by authorised firms.

The CLC has been asked whether this decision has any impact on the practice of conveyancing or probate.

In common with the Legal Services Board and the other front line regulators of legal services, the CLC confirms that it does not.

Schedule 3, section 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 is clear 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.

The supervising lawyer in a CLC practice, 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. This is the case across the legal sector. 

To clarify, the CLC does not authorise the practice of litigation and so Mazur has no implications for CLC-regulated practices. 

This statement, and effective regulation by the CLC, should assure clients and other lawyers that they can deal with CLC-regulated practices as usual.