Does anyone have any strong views about whether the Mazur ruling has any impact on casework in MH law? I’ve seen some departments that don’t have a regulated person (either ILEX or panel accreditation only) so it seems of quite high importance to many firms.
In my mind the relevant issues are:
-
Rights of audience (s.1(a)) under s.12 LSA isn’t an issue as it’s a panel-accredited model.
-
However, Conduct of litigation (s.1(b)) seems to be quite broadly defined as initiating or continuing “legal proceedings” in general, which must include tribunal proceedings.
-
Tribunals are included in the definition of “court” as per s.207 LSA.
-
There doesn’t appear to be any relevant exemption under Schedule 3 LSA.
If the above is correct (and please do tell me if anyone disagrees) - then we’re in quite a bizarre situation where an “unauthorised” panel-accredited caseworker could represent at the substantive hearing but not themselves submit an initial application or any case management request.
The panel model might infer that an accredited person could do both those things, but the LSA is primary legislation & unless there’s any delegation to the Law Society (which would be very unlikely as it’s an independent body rather than a regulator), their input doesn’t mean much.
… or am I opening a can of worms even bringing this up?