On 31 March, the Court of Appeal ruled that people who are not authorised to conduct litigation can still carry out litigation work under the supervision of someone who is. That reversed the High Court's decision in Mazur in 2025, which had left a lot of firms unsure what their paralegals and some of their CILEX lawyers were allowed to do on a litigation file.
Since then, CILEx Regulation has issued guidance and the SRA has expanded its own guidance on supervision. We recruit legal support staff as well as solicitors, so this one is close to home.
The short version
Firms can delegate litigation work to supervised staff again. The catch is the word supervised. After months of uncertainty, no firm wants to be the test case for weak supervision, and I would expect regulators to look at it closely.
Supervisors are the real hire
Here is my angle. Volume litigation runs on teams of paralegals and legal assistants, with a qualified lawyer overseeing them. The ruling keeps that model alive. It also means the person doing the overseeing matters a lot more than it used to.
A solicitor or authorised CILEX lawyer who can run a team, check the work and show their supervision holds up is now one of the most useful hires a litigation department can make. In my view firms should pay for that skill, and lawyers who have it should know it is worth something.
If you are a paralegal or CILEX lawyer
The last year showed how exposed a role can be when your authority to do the work depends on someone else. That is nobody's fault, it is just how the rules work.
So I would use this moment. If you are working towards authorisation, through CILEX or the SQE, keep going and ask your firm how it will support you. If you are not, think about whether you want to be. When you look at a new role, ask how supervision works there, who checks your work, how often, and how it is recorded. A firm with a clear answer is a firm that has thought about it.
The other view
There is a fair argument on the other side, that clients deserve to know exactly who is running their file and who is responsible for it. I do not think that goes away because of how the Court of Appeal ruled. Firms that are open with clients about who does what will be on safer ground, and so will the people working for them.
If you are hiring
It would not surprise me if some experienced paralegals moved away from litigation while the rules were unclear. They are worth finding. When you interview support staff, ask about the supervision they had in their last role as well as the work they did. It tells you how they will fit into yours.
If you are building or rebuilding a litigation support team, when would you be free for a quick chat next week?
Sources
- CILEX, response to the Mazur Court of Appeal judgment
- Legal Desire, Mazur Court of Appeal ruling explained
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Appeal confirmed supervised staff can carry out litigation work, reversing the uncertainty left by the 2025 High Court decision.
- The catch is supervision, and regulators are expected to look closely at how well it holds up.
- Solicitors and authorised CILEX lawyers who can run and evidence supervision are now among the most useful hires a litigation department can make.
- Paralegals working towards authorisation should ask firms exactly how supervision works before they move.
Discuss this confidentially with our team
About the Author
Chris Brain
Founder, Connect Legal Partners
Chris Brain is the Founder of Connect Legal Partners, working a 2-8 PQE legal recruitment desk across the Midlands from the West Midlands - covering Northants, Leicester, Birmingham and Shropshire. He places experienced solicitors with Legal 500-ranked and Chambers UK-listed firms across six core practice areas.