CILEx Regulation makes “time-limited” amendments to practice rights application process

CILEx Regulation has made a number of time-limited amendments to the practice rights application process, after representations were made that portfolio applicants affected by the Mazur judgment faced challenges when completing applications.

Following feedback from the CILEx Support Group, the regulator said that the amendments are:

• Age of evidence. “Recognising the exceptional circumstances arising post-Mazur, we will accept relevant litigation experience gained in the preceding five years. This is an extension on the current two years.”
• Work-based Learning (WBL) and professional accreditations. “WBL assessments and relevant professional accreditations obtained within the ten years preceding an application can be used to support an application but cannot be considered as an exemption.”
• Re-use of accreditation evidence. “Where relevant, evidence used in a WBL application or third-party accreditation schemes can be re-used in a portfolio application provided it maps to the relevant requirement. This will be given the same weight to more contemporary material that may be submitted. Evidence previously submitted can be up to ten years old.”
• Expedition through the assessment process. “CRL will consider whether evidence of current accreditations and previous experience can enable applications to be expedited through the assessment process. This will be considered on a case-by-case basis.”

 CILEx Regulation said these amendments will operate until 30 June 2026.

“To benefit from these, applicants need to submit completed applications by that date. We will keep this under review and will consider an extension if necessary,” it said.

David Thomas, Core Member of the CILEx Support Group, said: “We welcome the adjustments CILEX Regulation have made to the evidential requirements placed on applicants. This reflects feedback the CILEX Support Group presented to CILEX Regulation from Chartered Legal Executives affected by the Mazur judgment.”

The Court of Appeal will later this month (23-26 February) hear an appeal over the High Court ruling in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys, in which Mr Justice Sheldon concluded that an employee of an authorised firm cannot conduct litigation simply by virtue of their employment, even if supervised by an authorised person.