Post-Mazur, can everything just go back to how it was? I sincerely hope not.
If we treat these past seven months as a fever dream without reflecting on them and thinking about how we avoid a similar situation again, it will be a huge opportunity lost.
In the aftermath of the original judgment, it became immediately apparent that the ruling was having a detrimental impact across the profession. On behalf of our members, we raised these issues with the Ministry of Justice. Officials did listen and were sympathetic, but what became clear was that they were powerless to do anything.
We also went out to many in the legal ecosystem to gain consensus, but were told to pipe down and focus on getting our people practice rights. Many also counselled us against appealing, suggesting this was special pleading or self-interest. But that fundamentally misunderstands the point. This was never about narrow interests – it was about the long-term health of the profession and the public it serves.
I am proud that we stood up to be counted. Even if the outcome had been different, I would not have regretted having these issues aired in court. The questions raised needed to be asked and the consequences of silence would have been far greater.
We need to challenge the presumption that if the big players are content, all is well. The fact that the larger parts of the profession were content to adapt to Mr Justice Sheldon’s ruling does not mean it was right or good for legal services. Legal services need a legal and regulatory framework that supports every type of law and every type of client, whether that is global M&A or a law centre supporting a tenant facing eviction.
Throughout the appeal process, much was said about client protection. Of course, client protection is vital. But if we want a fair justice system, it cannot be the only consideration. Access to justice matters just as much. The two are not in competition; they must coexist in practice on the ground and in the minds of the regulators.
The most powerful moment during the appeal was when litigant in person Jerome Stuart asked: where is the consumer in all of this? A stark reminder for all. At times, the debate had drifted so far into technical argument that even master of the rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos thought we were getting into ‘how many angels can stand on the point of a needle’ territory.
The regulatory ‘scramble’ that has characterised this area since 2007 has not helped solicitors or CILEX lawyers. As the master of the rolls observed during the case, regulators appeared to be operating ‘in their trenches’. That is not a sustainable way to regulate a modern legal sector. We must move beyond siloed thinking. This judgment presents an opportunity for regulators and professional bodies to work more collaboratively, more constructively, and with a shared focus on the public interest. If we take that opportunity, this moment could reshape the profession for the better.
Throughout this whole episode, I have been shocked by the tone of some of the public commentary following the original judgment. Most solicitors I met were deeply concerned about their CILEX lawyer colleagues and were working hard to adapt arrangements to minimise barriers to them working. A minority, however, took to social media with what appeared to be some relish at the plight of their CILEX colleagues. Arriving from the education sector into the legal sector, this shocked and appalled me in equal measure. I had thought the law was the place of respectful and reasoned debate, not one where a small but vocal minority can air prejudice with impunity.
CILEX is the third branch of the legal profession. If we genuinely aspire to having a legal system that represents the public we say we serve, we should be standing alongside barristers and solicitors as an equal and valued part of the system. There should be a broader recognition that there is more than one route into the profession. CILEX lawyers are not lesser than solicitors – they are trained specialist lawyers who are fully capable of delivering high-quality legal services. The future of legal services depends on embracing that diversity, not resisting it.
So, where does this leave us?
For CILEX, Mazur is not an endpoint – it is a catalyst for change.
Despite the challenges of the past seven months, we have continued to see scores of individuals and employers taking up the CILEX Professional Qualification – CILEX is growing. We need to increase the number of people qualifying in this way if we are to change legal services for the better.
Our focus remains on building the trust of our members, doing all we can to serve and represent them, and highlighting the significant contribution they make to the legal profession.
We will also continue to press for reform of the Legal Services Act, which in our view is no longer fit for purpose in a rapidly evolving sector. The framework must adapt to reflect how legal services are actually delivered today, not how they were conceived decades ago.
We will also be asking more fundamental questions about the balance within the regulatory system. Is the current division between membership bodies and regulators working as effectively as it should? Does it deliver the clarity, consistency and confidence that both practitioners and consumers need? Can we establish a more respectful and collaborative way of working in the interests of the public?
These are not abstract questions; they go to the heart of how we ensure a legal system that is accessible, fair and fit for the future.
What Mazur has shown is that change is possible, but only if we are prepared to challenge, to collaborate, and to lead.
Jennifer Coupland is CEO of CILEX
No comments yet