Impact from Mazur

[Runningalongnicely]

The law firm I work for has many unqualified staff members working for them - including me - in supervisory roles. Post Mazur I am not happy to sign documents/supervise etc but I’ve been told it’s BAU and to carry on. I have 10 years + experience but not CILEX/FILEX. What are firms doing to support unqualified staff and comply with Mazur? Many thanks

I thought it was now a criminal offence to partake in litigation activities even under supervision. There is guidance i do believe at SAR

IANAL but have an interest in law

There’s just been a successful appeal, hasn’t there? I haven’t read the judgment but hear it’s about 40 pages. Prior to the appeal it was a case of making sure that a Solicitor or Barrister signed off any claim forms, particulars etc but actually it kind of just seemed like business as usual to me

The impact of Mazur will now all come down to the supervision of non-qualified staff. I'm happy to sign offers / documents if I've had oversight of a file; I will never allow work to go out 'On behalf of Fluffy' if I've had zero oversight / input / ability to review (I'm hoping my firm won't ever suggest that as a way forward).

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/dispute-resolution/mazur-v-charles-russell-speechlys-litigators

@Hedgehogforshort, that was the original judgment. The appeal allows for supervised work to comply.

I'm not sure what level of supervision will be expected / required. If it's everything, then you might as well be running the file yourself!

I've been off since the appeal judgment due to Easter. I'm interested to see how my employer will deal with it.

@Goldenmimx, my reading is that there will need to be far more supervision of non-quals. I'm not sure what form that has to take (i.e. is supervision of the initial review / plan of action OK, or does every step need supervising?).

I probably should have read the judgment by now. It makes sense to have adequate supervision although I can imagine it might feel insulting to non qualified staff who have been conducting litigation for many years

Oh thanks i missed the appeal.

Unfortunately I’m not an authorised person. Neither are quite a few of my supervisor colleagues. I don’t fancy being fined or jailed for carrying out reserved legal activity.

Have you spoken with your manager about how the firm intends to comply with the law? Surely they'll have been putting something in place, bearing in mind the original - more stringent - judgment was last September?

When the firm's engagement letter is sent out, whose name is on there as your supervising solicitor?

If your firm's going to be head in the sand about it, it may be worth going elsewhere where they have a suitable supervision structure.

I’ve raised it many times - been told it is with the COLP and guidance will be provided. In our retainer letter it has FE’s name, my name as supervisor and an authorised persons name as having overall conduct - but they will never have seen the file or supervised anything on it. I’ll raise it again as I think there is Law Society guidance due out tomorrow which may focus their minds.

The Law Society is considering appealing which I thought was a bad move until I read this thread. I attended the appeal remotely and one of the concerns raised by the judges was the potential for pseudo-supervision. Someone authorised 'in the building' who took responsibility on paper but had never seen the file. The SRA hasn't helped matters by casually reinforcing that they have regulatory discretion and won't be bringing criminal charges, which sends the wrong message and leads to stuff like this.

I think there are many firms which have 'pseudo-supervision' going on. I've worked in places where there was very little supervision provided, even to quite junior fee earners / solicitors. I'm not surprised, having worked in that kind of firm, that the LS is considering an appeal.

My current firm has a far more rigid supervisory framework, thankfully, which should protect the non-qualified staff (assuming they follow the correct processes re supervision).

We don’t have that supervision structure unfortunately. I keep a tight rein on my supervisees but those that have been signed off and are not authorised have no supervision whatsoever, and only have supervisor input when something goes wrong. The CCFA states they are being supervised by an authorised persons name, but in reality they are not. I didn’t realise The Law Society was considering a further appeal.

Mazur is a mess, and the appeal judgment hasn't by any means sorted it out. The bottom line is that whereas unqualified staff were previously left to their own devices, and allowed to do regulated activity which was only technically supervised that's no longer the case. Their employer will have to prove that their work is being actively reviewed and supervised, and by someone who's fit to do so.

I know loads of unqualified people doing, say, divorce work, who are supervised by a single solicitor who knows nothing about divorce and is a conveyancer or a criminal practitioner, and they are the ones who are going to be in serious difficulty.

But as an employee you aren't expected to interpret a ludicrously arcane area of law, and there is not the slightest prospect of you being criticised, still less prosecuted, simply for doing what your employer instructs you to do, so stop worrying.

Thank you everyone - there will be thousands of people in the same position as me. I’ll raise it again with my employer as they need to sort something out asap.

A slightly cynical observation, but your employer will care about the risk of consequences rather than the spirit of the law or the appeal judgment. It seems that despite the assurance of 'clarity', there are still significant gaps and wiggle room in interpretation. And the reality is the SRA hasn't got the resource nor the appetite to split hairs with individual firms about whether or not supervision was meaningful or even adequate. This case was embarrassing for them more than anyone, and any regulatory action brought would be fought more fiercely than average by the firms involved, because of the ambiguity created around the issue (which the SRA fed into by changing their own position between hearings...). It would be an expensive mess and a PR nightmare for the SRA to try.

My suggestion would be to keep your head down rather than label yourself a troublemaker within your firm. You might consider quietly voicing your concerns to the Law Society themselves - to help them work out whether there's enough of a problem to appeal - but as far as your firm is concerned, the status quo is compliant enough to be 'safe' from consequence right now, which is all they care about.

And the reality is the SRA hasn't got the resource nor the appetite to split hairs with individual firms about whether or not supervision was meaningful or even adequate.

Until / unless somebody makes a mistake, at which point I can see all of this unraveling for that firm and individual.

I'm not sure that OP's firm is 'compliant enough', bearing in mind that the supervisors and fee earners aren't qualified (the CCFA content is also concerning). I would definitely raise it with my employer in OP's position, to get clarity. Mazur isn't exactly unknown, why would she be deemed a troublemaker? Our non-qualified staff were pushing for answers persistently since the September judgment (especially as the SRA were making noises about investigations: https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/sra-will-take-sympathetic-approach-to-pre-mazur-breaches).

Ultimately, the OP is the person who needs to be happy with how she is working, and if she's not (I wouldn't be in her shoes either), then she needs to take steps to be reassured by her firm.

Oh, I'd have also thought that PII providers may be asking firms questions on renewal as well.

If you are confident you are an able lawyer, would it not make sense to try and get qualified?

I realise it involves some work and costs , but on an individual level if l liked my career but was not qualified that is what I would be doing. Your employer is just your employer, you need to think about your own career.

CILEX's argument was if someone, somewhere in the building is authorised, and 'takes responsibility' (i.e. the blame) for the work if it goes wrong, then it's fine. The judges were like, 'So... you can have one solicitor and 1000 paralegals, and as long as the solicitor takes responsibility for all the work, you think it's ok?' and CILEX said yes exactly.

It doesn't really matter that the judgment has taken a more pragmatic approach and tried to add 'meaningful' to the concept of supervision. On an individual firm level, they've likely assessed how they work against the risk of regulatory action, rather than whether it aligns perfectly with the letter of the judgment itself. It could easily be that this firm has absorbed CILEX's success as an endorsement the CILEX model as it was put forward on appeal.

And I didn't really mean that OP was being a troublemaker. Just that the firm isn't going to restructure how it operates just because she's voicing her concerns. In which case all she will have done is say, 'I'm not happy working like this' to her employer...

CILEX's argument was if someone, somewhere in the building is authorised, and 'takes responsibility' (i.e. the blame) for the work if it goes wrong, then it's fine. The judges were like, 'So... you can have one solicitor and 1000 paralegals, and as long as the solicitor takes responsibility for all the work, you think it's ok?' and CILEX said yes exactly.

Rather optimistic that you'd find somebody willing to risk their PC in that way!

I think any firms not complying with a qualified supervision model will be putting themselves at risk, and changes may end up being PII-driven, even if the firms themselves are reluctant to act.

I’m coming to the end of my career now (started late in law) but need to do something given today’s Law Society guidance.

I would look for a new job.

I do find it a bit astonishing that there are firms that are so dependent on unqualified people doing so much of the work.

We are much cheaper to employ. The negotiated fixed fees are so ridiculously low that they can’t justify having a qualified person handle the case load. Quality isn’t a consideration- that’s what the indemnity fund is there for if anyone complains - or a mistake is picked up if someone happens to look at the file during a general review.

Might just retire instead 😂