Portfolio route applications – evidence requirements update

The CILEX Support Group have made representations to CRL that litigation practice rights portfolio applicants face challenges when completing applications. The purpose of the portfolio is to enable applicants to showcase their skills and experience but also to demonstrate their currency and competency at the point of authorisation.

Based on feedback from the CILEX Support Group and applicants, we have decided to make a number of time-limited amendments to the practice rights application process.  These are:

1. Age of evidence. Recognising the exceptional circumstances arising post-Mazur, we will accept relevant litigation experience gained in the preceding five years. This is an extension on the current two years.
2. Work-based Learning (WBL) and professional accreditations. WBL assessments and relevant professional accreditations obtained within the ten years preceding an application can be used to support an application but cannot be considered as an exemption.
3. Re-use of accreditation evidence. Where relevant, evidence used in a WBL application or third-party accreditation schemes can be re-used in a portfolio application provided it maps to the relevant requirement. This will be given the same weight to more contemporary material that may be submitted. Evidence previously submitted can be up to ten years old.
4. Expedition through the assessment process. CRL will consider whether evidence of current accreditations and previous experience can enable applications to be expedited through the assessment process. This will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

These amendments will operate until 30 June 2026. To benefit from these, applicants need to submit completed applications by that date. We will keep this under review and will consider an extension if necessary.

Commenting on the refinements, David Thomas, Core Member of the CILEx Support Group, said:

“We welcome the adjustments CILEX Regulation have made to the evidential requirements placed on applicants. This reflects feedback the CILEX Support Group presented to CILEX Regulation from Chartered Legal Executives affected by the Mazur judgment.”