TCLA Premium: Now half price (£30/month). Applications, interviews, commercial awareness + 700+ examples.
Join →

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jessica Pearson - Managing Director" data-source="post: 240963" data-attributes="member: 39846">Okay I had a little weekend break but I wanted to discuss some recent news that will be affecting how firms operate. The Mazur decision came down in November last year and is pertinent. But why?Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys considered whether a non-authorised person is entitled to conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised person. It revolved around the use of supervised paralegals and it was held that a non‑authorised individual may not conduct litigation, even if acting under the supervision of an authorised person. The judgement distinguished between supporting an authorised person in the conduct of litigation (permissible)and conducting litigation under supervision (impermissible).The Mazur judgment relates only to litigation, not to other reserved activities. However, solicitors undertaking other reserved activities may still wish to review the SRA guidance on supervision to make sure their processes are compliant.The Legal Services Board will be undertaking a review on regulation.In the meantime, it is likely that firms have already begun to review processes to ensure clarity and reduce their operational risks. What do you think?Sources: [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.39essex.com/our-thinking/insights/mazur-v-charles-russell-speechlys-clarifying-and-complicating-the-conduct-of-litigation/[/URL][URL unfurl="true"]https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/civil-litigation/mazur-v-charles-russell-speechlys-litigators[/URL]</blockquote>

Verification: Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Top Bottom

Search

Search

Reply to thread