These tasks include drafting pleadings and witness statements
The Law Society of England and Wales has outlined the litigation-related tasks unauthorized law firm staff can perform following the significant High Court judgment in Julia Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, reported the Law Society Gazette.
The September decision by justice Clive Sheldon threw into question who was entitled to conduct litigation, with Sheldon ruling that per the Legal Services Act, a person conducting litigation needed to be authorized, even if they were doing so under the supervision of an authorized party. The judgment sent shockwaves throughout law firms as legal executives grappled with uncertainty over their roles.
The Law Society issued a practice note in October that sought to clarify the roles of non-authorized law firm staff but also called on regulators to confirm “gray areas”, such as the difference between an unauthorized person supporting an authorized person in conducting litigation and an unauthorized person conducting it themselves.
The Law Society’s latest guidance indicated that many pre-action litigation tasks could still be carried out by non-authorized employees, including offering general legal advice, drafting pleadings, particulars of claim, applications and correspondence, and proofing witnesses, and drafting witness statements. Chancery Lane defined conducting litigation as formal steps in proceedings like the issuing, filing and serving of applications and statements of case; thus, many pre-action tasks either fell under assisting an authorized person or did not fall under the litigation conduct definition.
The person responsible for conducting litigation depends on the facts of individual cases.
“Solicitors and firms will wish to make sure their processes and records demonstrate that appropriately authorised persons are exercising their professional responsibility for the key formal steps and strategic decisions in connection with proceedings initiated before the courts. Tick-box oversight from an authorised person will not be sufficient,” the Law Society indicated in the guidance, a snippet of which was published by the Gazette.
Since the Mazur decision, many legal executives have applied to the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) Regulation, the body regulating legal executives. for authorization rights. Almost 600 have applied for litigation practice rights.
“We have invested heavily in our capacity and capability to process high numbers of portfolio applications. We have hired and trained new external assessors and re-engineered our processes to reduce inefficiencies and offer earlier feedback,” said a CILEx Regulation spokesperson in a statement published by the Gazette.
