Following the Mazur judgment, many long-practising CILEX professionals lost rights they had exercised for years and were required to obtain formal Practice Rights authorisation. In our second blog post reflecting on the impact of the Mazur judgment, former Resolution chair Juliet Harvey considers the wider impact on Chartered Legal Executives, firms and the profession — and why support and understanding still matter.
Imagine waking up to learn that four years of study, professional exams, two years’ qualifying experience and years in practice suddenly counted for little more than “assisting” in litigation. That was the reality for me and many other Chartered Legal Executives after Sheldon J’s decision in the Mazur judgment. There were tears – many of them.
Shock waves rippled through the profession. Files were moved from experienced practitioners to solicitors – sometimes newly qualified or unfamiliar with the work. Lawyers like me, qualified for decades, suddenly had to ask colleagues to sign off steps and discuss tactics on our own cases. Others faced withdrawn job offers, non-renewed contracts or early retirement; I heard of disciplinary action and reports to the SRA. My firm was very supportive from the outset and committed to finding a route through the regulatory uncertainty.
Many of us were bewildered: our “professional way of working” fell away overnight. To keep progressing litigation for clients, we needed practice rights. For years, within our practice areas, we were told we could do the same work as solicitor colleagues (save for appearing in open court). Although practice rights existed, many of us understood them to be primarily relevant to running a firm. Mazur turned that on its head: practice rights became essential simply to carry on working as before.
The route to practice rights was not straightforward. There was no “grandfathering” for those qualified decades ago. We either had to compile a detailed competency portfolio or take an assessment: a mock client interview, a written exercise based on that interview, and a 45‑minute multiple-choice test (for me, spanning the breadth of family law). I chose the assessment route, delivered at Master’s level through the University of Law. After enrolling in late October, we did not receive materials until January 2026, leaving only a matter of weeks before the assessments.
The online systems had their quirks. Not everyone grew up with today’s technology, and for some the digital side – logging in, navigating systems, and uploading correctly – was more daunting than the study itselfOne positive was how quickly CILEX members supported each other via LinkedIn and WhatsApp. I joined the January 2026 intake, and our group highlighted how specialised family law has become: public law practitioners might rarely touch finances; financial remedy specialists may not deal with children work or injunctions. Many of us worried about the breadth of the syllabus.
In induction week we were told the oral and written elements would be “narrow and deep”, while the multiple-choice test would be “broad and shallow”. We were advised to bring a calculator for child maintenance calculations, although many of us noted that, in practice, we would use the online calculator on gov.uk. Our group built mnemonics, shared quiz tools and tips. My phone buzzed day and night. Every spare moment in early 2026 went on studying and practising the mechanics of the assessments. We worried about connectivity failing mid-interview or during the online test; some deferred parts due to pre-booked holidays, others sat from hotels overseas.
After the exams came an anxious wait. On 2 March we received “provisional” results, and then waited until 27 March for confirmation of whether we were deemed “competent” to do work many had performed for 25+ years. Meanwhile, some parts of the profession treated us as outsiders. We often read unkind comments, with CLEs described as “unqualified”. Please be clear: Chartered Legal Executives are highly qualified professionals. While we were not “approved persons” for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, it is wrong to call us unqualified.
CILEX appealed. The Court of Appeal judgment arrived before Easter and was met with jubilation among members. Even so, I do not feel we are simply “back where we were”. I expect closer scrutiny of work delegated to non-approved persons, and firms will need clearer, documented supervision processes. The cost is real: to members’ careers and confidence, to future entrants, and to the reputation of the CILEX “badge”. The episode also exposed how quickly uncertainty can damage confidence, careers and professional identity..
I was asked whether I regretted the time spent studying for practice rights. Honestly, no. It reminded me how diverse our practice area is and deepened my appreciation of colleagues in public law and legal aid. And those who know me know I love a quiz taking one alongside 400 family lawyers on my birthday is an experience I will not forget.
So where next for Chartered Legal Executives and CILEX lawyers? We need stronger links across the profession and to push for reform and clarity together, not pull apart. We must also do more to educate the judiciary, the profession and the public that CILEX lawyers are qualified specialists – no lesser lawyers, simply qualified by a different route.
If you have legal executives in your team – or paralegals on the CILEx journey – please check in with them and support them. Spare a thought too for Chartered Paralegals facing a situation where practice rights are not available unless they start the CILEX CPQ route, with no concession for earlier experience and study.
I remain full of admiration for CILEX colleagues; many juggle full-time work, caring responsibilities and Master’s-level study. Please support them – and be proud of them – just as I am proud to be a CILEX member.
Juliet Harvey, partner at Birketts, and Resolution national committee member
See another member’s experience of Mazur
