Law centres have intervened in the Mazur appeal amid concerns that uncertainty created by last year’s High Court ruling could restrict access to justice for individuals facing eviction, discrimination, or loss of income.
The Law Centres Network (LCN) confirmed that it has entered the appeal to ensure the Court of Appeal considers the wider implications for non-commercial access to justice organisations, including law centres operating in areas of acute social and financial need.
The appeal follows a judgment by Mr Justice Sheldon, which held that only authorised individuals may conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act. The ruling is being challenged by the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, with the appeal hearing scheduled to begin on 24 February.
Other interveners in the case include the Law Society and the Legal Services Board.
LCN said its intervention is intended to highlight the practical impact of the ruling on law centres, which are not authorised entities under the Legal Services Act but employ authorised solicitors who supervise specialist caseworkers. The network warned that requiring solicitors to personally conduct every stage of litigation would inevitably reduce capacity, limiting the number of people able to access legal assistance.
Under LCN membership rules, law centres must employ at least two solicitors with a minimum of three years’ post-qualification experience and operate under strict supervision standards. Despite this, LCN said the current uncertainty threatens their ability to deliver services effectively while operating under severe financial pressure.
Julie Bishop, chief executive of the Law Centres Network, said law centres work within the regulatory framework and are committed to maintaining high standards of legal service. However, she said the Mazur judgment has created uncertainty over how that framework applies to access to justice organisations.
She warned that without regulatory clarity, individuals with legitimate cases may struggle to obtain legal help—not because their claims lack merit, but because of how regulation is interpreted in practice. LCN has called for a definition of “conduct of litigation” that is proportionate, workable, and grounded in the public interest.
LCN is being represented in the appeal on a pro bono basis by A&O Shearman, alongside Gatehouse Chambers, with PJ Kirby KC and James Hall acting as counsel.
The outcome of the appeal is expected to have significant implications for law centres and access to justice organisations across England and Wales.
