Do Guideline Hourly Rates need to be revisited for Chartered Legal Executives?

One of the apparent anomalies to emerge from Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) is the fact that Chartered Legal Executives with over 8 years’ experience are treated as Grade A fee earners for the purposes of the Guideline Hourly Rates despite the fact that many of them are not authorised to conduct litigation and, according to Mazur, would therefore be unable run litigated cases.

It seems highly likely that the explanation for this anomaly is that those responsible for determining what category of fee earner would attract Grade A rates had not appreciated that a large portion of Chartered Legal Executives were not entitled to conduct litigation. Previously, it was only solicitors with over 8 years’ experience who were treated as Grade A fee earners.

The current Guideline Hourly Rates simply refer to Grade A fee earners as:

“Solicitors and legal executives with over 8 years’ experience”

The Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs gives a fuller description:

“Solicitors with over eight years post qualification experience including at least eight years litigation experience and Fellows of CILEX with 8 years’ post-qualification experience”

It is odd that the second definition requires solicitors to have “at least eight years litigation experience” whereas for Fellows of CILEX it just says “8 years’ post-qualification experience”. It would be strange, for example, if a Chartered Legal Executives with 8 years’ PQE dealing only with conveyancing could attract Grade A rates on their first clinical negligence case whereas a 20 years’ PQE solicitor who has spent only the most recent 7 dealing with litigation was limited to Grade B. It seems reasonable to assume that this is simply badly worded and the 8 years’ litigation experience is required for either to attract Grade A. The badly worded explanation is all the more likely when one looks at the Grade B definition in the same Guide:

“Solicitors and Fellows of CILEX with over four years post qualification experience including at least four years litigation experience.”

Here, it is clear that it is the litigation experience which is key.

Now, to the extent to which Chartered Legal Executives are running their own litigation, and assuming the case is complex and/or high value enough to justify a Grade A fee earner, it was entirely reasonable for those responsible for determining Guideline Hourly Rates to conclude that they should attract the same rates as similarly experienced solicitors. The decision to allow Chartered Legal Executives to recover Grade A rates came from the CJC Costs Committee Recommendations on Guideline Hourly Rates for 2014:

“Should Fellows of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) with 8 years post-qualification experience automatically qualify for Grade A?

6.1.1 The CJC set up a working group in 2012 to look at the issue of whether Fellows of CILEX with 8 years’ PQE should have parity with solicitors in terms of qualifying automatically for Grade A fee earner rates. Having considered a report from the CJC group the then Master of the Rolls (Lord Neuberger MR) decided not to support the proposal as there had not been sufficient evidence of a change in market practice to justify such a reform.

6.1.2 The Committee received a good deal of evidence on this issue, and many Legal Executives were captured in the data of the various surveys – this is illustrated by the fact that at least 72% of those responding to the CILEX salary survey were employed by legal practices/firms of solicitors. The consistent message is that Chartered Legal Executives are operating at the same levels of experience and expertise as other lawyers – 260 are partners of law firms (which they have been able to become since 2009) and the wider recognition is illustrated by the first judicial appointments and the Legal Services Board’s recent announcement that they endorse Legal Executives’ rights to conduct litigation.

6.1.3 CILEX advanced a written submission on this issue, arguing for parity with solicitors based on Legal Executives also having worked to a high standard, being governed by a Code of Conduct and an independent regulator, and having completed academic study, examinations and three years’ relevant practical and specialist legal experience (five years’ work experience for the GHR Grade A category). Legal Executives who follow appropriate training/qualification routes also have rights of audience as advocates.

6.1.4 The Committee received a number of comments (written and in the oral evidence sessions) from lawyers who supported the move to parity in eligibility for the Grade A rate. It was noted that legal executives frequently worked at the same levels in litigation work as very senior solicitors already normally qualified for Grade A rates based on the quality and complexity of the work undertaken, but their status as a Legal Executive often led paying parties to challenge the banding costs.

6.1.5 The Committee’s view is that the crucial test for qualification for any of the Grades must be on the experience and expertise of the fee earner concerned and the level of work undertaken. In the Committee’s view Chartered Legal Executive Fellows of 8 plus years’ PQE should have parity with solicitors of equivalent experience and, accordingly, it recommends that the Master of the Rolls should amend the criteria for Grade A fee earners for the new GHR.”

What is noteworthy is that there is absolutely no discussion about the distinction between fee earners who conduct litigation and those who do not. Although it notes the “Legal Services Board’s recent announcement that they endorse Legal Executives’ rights to conduct litigation”, it seems very likely that they believed this would simply enable them to undertake such rights in their own name rather than permit them to be able to run their own cases for the first time. The more telling passage is: “legal executives frequently worked at the same levels in litigation work as very senior solicitors already normally qualified for Grade A rates based on the quality and complexity of the work undertaken”. Fee earners who are not permitted to conduct litigation are clearly not working at the same level as fee earners who are. There is a significant difference between conducting litigation oneself and simply assisting another fee earner to conduct litigation.

Prior to Mazur, very large number of unauthorised Chartered Legal Executives conducted litigation in the belief there were permitted to do so by virtue of working for an authorised firm of solicitors and/or acting under the supervision of an authorised individual. It seems very likely that the CJC Costs Committee also believed this was permissible and that was why suitably experienced Chartered Legal Executives should be treated as Grade A.

Should it make a difference whether a Chartered Legal Executives is authorised to conduct litigation as to what hourly rate they should attract?

It has always been the case that the degree of responsibility being undertaken by the fee earner is relevant to the question of what hourly rate to allow. In a suitably complex case, where a fee earner places little or no reliance on Counsel, that may justify a higher hourly rate. Conversely, where there has been very heavy reliance on Counsel, that may justify a lower one.

The CJC Costs Committee appears to have proceeded on the basis that all Chartered Legal Executives were able to conduct litigation and this therefore justified all suitably experienced ones attracting Grade A rates. If that belief was misplaced, it raises a significant doubt at to whether unauthorised Chartered Legal Executives can justify Grade A rates if they are simply assisting in the conduct of litigation.

On the other hand, there may be circumstances where even just assistance in the conduct of litigation may justify Grade A rates. The generally accepted view now appears to be that Mazur would still permit an unauthorised fee earner to, for example, upon the instruction of an authorised fee earner, draft a Defence or Schedule of Damages. If that is work of sufficient complexity as to justify handling by a Grade A fee earner, then an 8 years’ PQE unauthorised Chartered Legal Executive may be able to justify Grade A rates. On the other hand, more routine tasks undertaken by the same fee earner may now attract a lower rate.

Do Guideline Hourly Rates need to be revised to distinguish between authorised and unauthorised Chartered Legal Executives?