Guidance Note: Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)

In Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), the High Court (King’s Bench Division) clarified the limits of who may lawfully conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007 (“LSA”).

1. Facts

• The Respondent firm, Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (“CRS”), instructed Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (“GBS”) to recover unpaid fees from Mrs Mazur.
• Mr Peter Middleton, GBS’s “Head of Commercial Litigation,” undertook many procedural steps in the claim — including signing the claim form and particulars of claim — despite not being an authorised person under the LSA.
• The Appellants challenged his entitlement to conduct litigation. The proceedings were stayed by Deputy District Judge Campbell on that basis.
• CRS later applied to lift the stay. Before the application was heard by HHJ Simpkiss, GBS director Robert Ashall referred the matter to the SRA, which decided (on 2 December 2024) not to investigate.

HHJ Simpkiss lifted the stay and ordered the Appellants to pay CRS’s application costs of £10,653, reasoning that:

1. Mr Middleton had acted under the supervision of Mr Ashall (a solicitor);
2. A qualified solicitor had subsequently taken over the case; and
3. The SRA had stated that section 21(3) of the LSA entitled employees of authorised firms to undertake reserved activities under supervision.

The Appellants appealed, arguing that Mr Middleton was not entitled to conduct litigation — supervised or otherwise — because he was unauthorised.

2. The High Court’s Decision

Sheldon J allowed the appeal.

Key findings

1. Only authorised persons may conduct litigation.
   The Court held that, even within an authorised and regulated firm, only an authorised person (as defined by section 18 LSA) may conduct litigation. Employment or supervision does not confer authorisation.
2. Section 21(3) does not grant authorisation.
   The judge rejected the interpretation that section 21(3) LSA allows employees of authorised firms to conduct litigation. That provision simply extends regulatory jurisdiction to unauthorised employees; it does not make them “authorised persons.”
3. Employer authorisation does not extend to employees.
   Under sections 14–16 LSA, an employer may commit a criminal offence if an unauthorised employee conducts a reserved legal activity. Parliament therefore treated the two roles as distinct — an employer’s authorisation cannot be imputed to its employees.
4. Support vs. conduct.
   Unqualified staff may support authorised persons but cannot conduct litigation — even under supervision. The LSA provides no “under supervision” exception.

The Court did not make final factual findings about whether Mr Middleton’s conduct had crossed the line from assistance to litigation, but made clear that supervision does not legitimise unauthorised conduct.

3. Pre-Litigation Work

• Pre-action activity is generally not a reserved legal activity.
  Work carried out before the issue of proceedings may therefore be undertaken by non- qualified staff.
• Settlements reached before proceedings constitute non-contentious business.
• In Baxter v Doble [2023] EWHC 486 (KB), pre-action work was expressly held not to constitute conducting litigation.

However, firms must take care: pre-litigation steps that verge on procedural commitments (e.g. drafting formal pre-action letters threatening immediate court action) should be clearly supervised and signed off by a solicitor.

4. Conducting Litigation

Core principles

• The distinction between conducting and supporting litigation is one of fact and degree.
• The key question: Who exercises final professional judgment and assumes legal responsibility for the conduct of proceedings?

Authorised persons must:

• actively direct and review the case, not act as a “rubber stamp”;
• record supervision through file notes, email approvals, or sign-off memos; and
• ensure formal procedural steps (e.g. issuing, signing pleadings, applications) are taken by authorised individuals only.

5. Relevant Case Law

6. Regulatory and Criminal Implications

Criminal liability

• Section 14(1) LSA: unauthorised persons conducting reserved activities commit a criminal offence.
• Section 16 LSA: employers may be criminally liable for employees’ breaches.
  While prosecutions are rare, Mazur removes any lingering ambiguity. Firms allowing unqualified staff to conduct litigation may have facilitated offences.

Regulatory action

Firms should urgently review current litigation processes. If unauthorised conduct has occurred, self-reporting to the SRA, CILEx Regulation, or other relevant bodies may be advisable.

7. Regulator Statements

CILEx Regulation (24 September 2025)

“Chartered Legal Executives wishing to conduct litigation must hold the appropriate litigation practice rights. Many have advocacy rights but not litigation rights; they cannot issue proceedings, file statements of case, or instruct counsel unless authorised.”

SRA Statement (1 October 2025)

“The judgment confirms the existing law: only authorised individuals may conduct litigation. Non-authorised staff may support, not conduct, litigation — even under supervision.

Firms must ensure effective supervision and record decision-making about how supervision operates.”

8. Costs Recovery Implications

• Mazur is already being cited in costs disputes:

o Receiving parties rely on it to justify solicitor-level supervision costs.

o Paying parties invoke it to disallow costs for unauthorised work.

• Costs of work amounting to a reserved activity undertaken by an unauthorised person are likely to be irrecoverable — both between the parties and between solicitor and client.
• Firms should therefore review:

o their retainer terms;

o billing narratives; and

o file supervision records.

The Senior Costs Judge (conference, 25 September 2025) confirmed that Mazur-based costs challenges are already underway.

Fixed Costs

• Under fixed-cost regimes, the amount recoverable remains fixed regardless of who performed the work.
• However, unauthorised conduct may create a regulatory (rather than recoverability) issue.

9. Practical Steps for Firms

1. Identify who is conducting litigation.
   Confirm that every matter has an authorised “responsible litigator.”
2. Maintain evidence of supervision.
   Keep written records of reviews, sign-offs, and directions.
3. Ensure authorised execution of formal steps.
   Only authorised individuals should issue proceedings, sign pleadings, or correspond with the court.
4. Review retainers and billing.
   Make clear who is responsible and authorised.
5. Audit existing cases.
   Remedy defects where possible — e.g. by having a solicitor re-sign documents or adopt pleadings.
6. Train staff.
   Ensure all team members understand what counts as “conducting litigation.”

Where defects cannot be cured, firms may face strike-out applications, enforcement challenges, or wasted-costs risks.

10. Outlook

• Appeal status: No indication of an appeal at the time of writing.
• Regulatory direction: Both SRA and CILEx have reaffirmed the traditional interpretation of the LSA.
• Legislative reform: No sign of imminent change to the LSA framework.
• Operational impact: The shift of reserved work to authorised staff will increase litigation costs and may render certain high-volume or low-margin practice areas uneconomic, potentially affecting access to justice.

Summary

• Only authorised persons may conduct litigation.
• Supervision does not cure unauthorised conduct.
• Pre-litigation work remains largely unreserved but must be handled carefully.
• Firms must audit, document, and supervise all litigation processes to demonstrate compliance.
• Early remedial action can prevent wasted costs, disciplinary exposure, and loss of recoverable costs.

Post-Mazur compliant toolkit

Below is a post-Mazur compliance toolkit designed for UK law firms and litigation teams.

It’s split into two parts:

1. Audit & risk-checklist (for identifying exposure)
2. Compliance and supervision protocol (for day-to-day litigation practice)

1. Audit & Risk-Checklist

Purpose: Identify any areas where unauthorised persons (paralegals, trainees, CILEX members without rights, litigation assistants) may have conducted litigation rather than merely assisted.

2. Compliance & Supervision Protocol

Goal: Create a clear internal system showing who can do what — and how supervision is evidenced.

A. Role Definitions (post-Mazur)

B. Supervision Structure

1. Nominate a “Responsible Litigator” for each case — must be authorised.
2. Mandatory review points:

o Drafts of claim / defence / applications. o Statements of truth and pleadings.
o Settlement communications.
o Any document filed with court.

1. Evidence of supervision:
   
   o File notes of review meetings. o Email confirmation of approval.
   o Supervisor initials on drafts / CMS log. 4. File naming convention:
   o E.g. “Claim Form (draft by A. Smith [paralegal], approved J. Jones [solicitor] 08/10/25)”.

C. Firm Policy Statements

Include in your firm’s Risk & Compliance Manual:

• “All reserved legal activities (including conduct of litigation) must be carried out or directly executed by an authorised person.”
• “Supervision must be active, documented, and proportionate.”
• “Non-qualified staff must not sign or issue documents in their own name on behalf of clients or the firm.”

D. Pre-Action Safeguards

• Ensure letters of claim and letters of response are always reviewed and signed by a solicitor.
• Keep drafting logs to show solicitor involvement.
• Avoid unauthorised staff making threats of litigation in correspondence without approval.

E. Costs Protection

• Separate time entries between “reserved” and “support” work.
• Use internal billing codes:
  • LITAUTH – authorised litigation conduct.
  • LITSUP – support / admin assistance.
• Maintain justification for who did what in any costs schedule.