Roger Mullis

Roger Mullis

“Efficient and exceptionally knowledgeable.”

Trusts and Private Client: Legal 500, 2016

"He is known for his legal acumen as well as his ability to handle very complex cases."

Chancery, Traditional: Chambers UK, 2018

"Incredibly insightful and clever."

Private Client: Legal 500, 2017

“He’s a real detailer, who is very bright and conscientious. His written work is very thorough. There was one case where I thought we were doomed, and he came up with ideas we hadn’t thought of. It saved the day.”

Chancery, Traditional: Chambers UK, 2017

"Efficient and exceptionally knowledgeable."

Private Client: Legal 500, 2016

"He is brilliant with clients. He is very human, and he has a really good manner."

Chancery, Traditional UK: Chambers HNW, 2016

Practice Overview

Roger Mullis is a chancery practitioner with an emphasis on property litigation, contentious probate, the administration of estates and family provision.

Within the property field he has particular experience in landlord and tenant, both commercial and residential, including leasehold enfranchisement.

In addition he undertakes a substantial amount of professional negligence work, particularly in relation to the above areas.

He is consistently recommended as a chancery practitioner by Chambers and Partners Guide to the Legal Profession.


Roger accepts instructions in the following areas:

  • Court of Protection
  • Partnership and Joint Ventures
  • Professional Liability
  • Property
  • Tax
  • Trusts
  • Wills and Estates

Recent cases include:

  • Ondhia v Ondhia [2011] EWHC 3040 (Ch) (Roth J) (successfully represented an applicant for joinder in a claim relating to the construction and effect of a compromise relating to funds in a client account.)
  • Patel v Patel [2010] EWCA Civ 1242 (Court of Appeal) (succeeded in securing the dismissal of an appeal (and refusal of permission for further appeal) against an order made following a 15-day county court trial relating to the beneficial interests in an investment property held by a family partnership. Ward LJ referred to the ‘compelling logic’ of Mr Mullis’s ‘full and careful skeleton argument.’)