ILPA Position Statement – the Mazur Judgement and its Implications for Immigration Practitioners

ILPA documents

1. Overview

The High Court’s judgement in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) confirmed that the conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 which can only be undertaken by individuals who are personally authorised or exempt under statute. The Court held that such authorisation cannot be delegated or exercised under supervision. This clarification has created uncertainty for many immigration and asylum practitioners, particularly those accredited under the Law Society’s Immigration and Asylum Accreditation Scheme (IAAS) or qualified through CILEX without formal litigation practice rights.

2. ILPA’s Position

  • Mazur reinforces existing law but has significant implications for immigration and asylum practitioners, given that the sector has long relied on well-established accreditation and supervision frameworks to ensure competence and ethical practice.
  • Accreditation under the IAAS or any equivalent scheme does not confer authorisation to conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007.
  • CILEX Fellows and members who do not hold litigation practice rights may assist authorised individuals but cannot themselves conduct litigation.
  • Rights of audience before the First-tier and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) remain governed separately under tribunal rules and are unaffected by Mazur, though practitioners must still avoid taking steps that constitute “conducting litigation”.

3. Regulatory Developments

  • CILEX Regulation issued interim guidance (October 2025) confirming that individuals without litigation practice rights may support but not conduct litigation.
  • The Legal Services Board has now approved CILEX Regulation’s application for standalone litigation practice rights, allowing eligible CILEX members to apply for personal authorisation to conduct litigation independently of advocacy rights.
  • The Law Society has confirmed that IAAS accreditation, including Level 2 Senior Caseworker status, recognises competence for legal aid purposes but does not amount to authorisation to conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007.

4. ILPA’s Priorities

  1. Seek regulatory clarity from the Legal Services Board, CILEX Regulation, the Law Society and the Ministry of Justice on how Mazur applies to immigration and asylum proceedings.
  2. Issue clear guidance to members once formal clarification is secured.
  3. Advocate for proportionate regulatory change, if the effect of Mazur is to narrow the scope of supervised or accredited work beyond what Parliament intended.
  4. Help practitioners secure practice rights, by signposting the new CILEX route and supporting practical transition.
  5. Develop tailored training and resources to ensure members understand where “supporting” ends and “conducting” begins.
  6. Promote access to justice, ensuring regulation is implemented proportionately and does not disrupt services to vulnerable clients.

Document Date
Thursday November 6, 2025