header-logo header-logo

15 July 2020
Issue: 7895 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-detail

Powers extended for CILEx lawyers during COVID-19 pandemic

Institute urges government to make the change permanent

The Land Registry has confirmed it will accept lasting powers of attorney certified by legal executive lawyers for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

CILEx (the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) has called on the government to make the change permanent.

Under the Power of Attorney Act 1971, only solicitors and notaries public can certify copies of powers of attorney. However, CILEx contends that the exclusion of its members causes unnecessary delay and confusion. According to a CILEx survey of its members practising in wills and probate, the anomaly creates problems about ten times a month on average, resulting in delays for clients during a distressing time.

The research also found it had a negative effect on firms’ quality of service―75% said it caused delays―client satisfaction and fees.

One respondent said: ‘My clients do not understand why I cannot offer this service myself.

‘If I am qualified to act as a certificate provider and also to prepare the lasting power of attorney, then why am I not able to certify that a document is a true copy of an original document that I have already prepared?’

Another respondent said: ‘We can now become partners of law firms, have rights of audience in the courts, become judges, swear oaths as a Commissioner for Oaths, but we cannot certify a lasting power of attorney as a true copy of a page of the original document?’

CILEx chair Chris Bones (pictured) said: ‘We urge the government to take measures to make this a permanent arrangement.

‘Modernising practice in this way helps ensure affordable and timely access to legal services, particularly for the more than one million people especially susceptible to COVID-19. Our research shows how this outdated legislation is causing real people real problems, in an environment where concerns are already accentuated by the current pandemic.’

 

Issue: 7895 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll