Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys case - frequently-asked questions

Under section 18 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA), an "authorised person" in relation to a reserved legal activity is:

• A person who is authorised to carry on that activity by a relevant approved regulator (such as the SRA); or
• An exempt person in relation to that activity

Key categories of authorised persons:

1. Solicitors who are on the roll and hold a current practising certificate (provided they have no restrictions in place which prevent them from carrying out litigation);
2. Other qualified lawyers such as costs lawyers (in relation to legal costs);
3. Chartered legal executives, barristers and patent / trademark attorneys (but in each case only where they have the relevant practising rights);
4. Registered foreign lawyers (RFLs) where they have been given specific rights of practice under 9.4 of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations;
5. Registered European lawyers (RELs) can carry out litigation or prepare court documents, but only in conjunction with a solicitor or barrister who is authorised to do so (9.2);
6. Registered Swiss lawyers (RSLs) can only carry out litigation under the direction and supervision of an authorised supervisor (9.5)

We consider who an “exempt” person is in the context of specific scenarios below.

No, conveyancing is not affected, despite it being one of the six reserved legal activities set out in the LSA. Paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 3 of the LSA provides that a non-authorised person is exempt (and therefore entitled to carry out conveyancing) provided that they carry on the activity “…at the direction and under the supervision of another [authorised] individual…” Paragraph 3(4) further provides that both the individual and supervisor must work at the same firm and the firm itself must also be authorised.

Probate is also one of the six reserved legal activities set out in the LSA. However, Paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 of the LSA contains an identical exemption for non-authorised persons as for conveyancing as mentioned above. As such, probate is not affected by Mazur.

We would, however, point out that the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP) issued guidance to STEP members on 15 October 2025 following the Mazur judgment. This points out that a STEP qualification in itself does not confer authorised status in the context of reserved legal activities. It also points out that, whilst the LSA expressly provides for certain exempt individuals to carry out probate activities under supervision, the Non-Contentious Probate Rules (NCPR) define a “probate practitioner” specifically as an authorised person for the purposes of the LSA.

This has the effect of excluding exempt individuals from carrying out activities under the NCPR even where they would otherwise be permitted from doing so under the LSA. STEP is calling on the government to amend the NCPR so that they align with the LSA. In the meantime, however, STEP has advised that only STEP members who are “authorised” by another means (i.e. being a solicitor with a current practising certificate) should undertake probate activities without supervision. 

Employment is not affected. The conduct of employment claims is not a reserved legal activity under the LSA. The one exception to this is appeals before the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT). The EAT is designated as a “superior court of record”, which means it has the same status as the High Court. As such, appearing before it (as advocacy is a reserved legal activity) can only be undertaken by an authorised person.

Non-authorised persons can undertake pre-litigation steps in litigation matters. The case of Heron Bros Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council [2015] EWHC 1009 (TCC) confirmed that activities taking undertaken prior to the issue of proceedings do not fall within the definition of the conduct of litigation under the LSA.

The Law Society has now also issued a Practice note entitled “Mazur and the conduct of litigation” which also confirms this at section 4 of the note. This Practice note is excellent and we recommend that firms review its contents carefully. We would however point out that it has already been updated four times since it was first published on 16 October 2025, so we recommend accessing the note through the Law Society’s website, rather than saving a copy on your computer, to ensure that you are reading the latest version of it.

Effective supervision is a regulatory requirement under 3.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct. As such, it is imperative that firms are supervising non-authorised individuals properly and effectively, and are able to evidence what steps they take to supervise them.

The level of supervision an individual requires will be a matter of fact and degree in each case, depending on a number of factors including an individual’s knowledge and experience. However, to assist, the SRA has issued some Guidance on Effective Supervision which is actually very comprehensive and useful. We recommend firms make themselves familiar with this guidance if you are not already.

This unfortunately remains somewhat of a grey area following Mazur, particularly given the lack of any meaningful guidance from the SRA and also the recent news that CILEx has been granted permission to appeal the High Court’s judgment. However, in our first article on the Mazur judgment we provided guidance on this, and the Guidance note from the Law Society mentioned above (which we fully endorse) also considers this and provides several useful examples at sections 4 and 5 of the note.

No, this is not correct. The case of Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M&E Services UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2865 distinguished the formal delivery of documents (an administrative task) and the role a solicitor carries out taking legal responsibility for their service (which was found to be the conduct of litigation). The Law Society’s Guidance note also confirms their view that this is an administrative task and can be undertaken by an non-authorised individual, provided that an authorised individual has taken responsibility for such acts (with a corresponding note on the file).

Under 7.7 of the SRA Code of Conduct you must report promptly to the SRA “…any facts or matters that you reasonable believe are capable of amounting to a serious breach of [your] regulatory arrangements…”

Whether a breach is “serious” or not will be a matter of fact and degree in each case. If, for example, you have identified a systemic breach of the LSA, such as non-authorised persons conducting reserved activities across multiple matters, or where you consider the breach is so severe that it will likely result in an investigation by the SRA, then we consider these should be reported to the SRA. However if only isolated breaches have been discovered and quickly rectified, with no loss to clients, then these may not need to be reported, but we would recommend contacting the SRA’s Ethics Helpline for guidance if you are unsure.

In any event, make sure that you make a written record of the assessment undertaken and the reasons for either reporting or not doing so in case the SRA shows interest at a later date.