ILPA publishes position statement on Mazur judgment implications for immigration practitioners
The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) has published a position statement responding to the High Court's judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), which confirmed that conducting litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 that cannot be delegated or exercised under supervision. The judgment has created uncertainty for 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. ILPA notes that this judgment 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. The position statement notes that CILEX Regulation issued interim guidance in October 2025 confirming individuals without litigation practice rights may support but not conduct litigation, while the Legal Services Board has approved CILEX Regulation's application for standalone litigation practice rights. The Law Society has confirmed that IAAS accreditation does not constitute authorisation to conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007.