Insight

Navigating the fallout from Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – Howden’s view

Published

02 October 2025

Written by

Michael Blüthner Speight

Read time

5 minutes

Introduction

On 16 September 2025, Mr Justice Sheldon handed down a judgment that has sent shockwaves through the legal profession. In Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) (“Mazur”), the High Court delivered an unequivocal ruling: mere employment by an authorised law firm does not entitle non-authorised individuals to conduct litigation, even under supervision.

The case arose from a debt recovery claim brought by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (represented by Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors) for non-payment of fees against Mrs Julia Mazur and Mr Jerome Stuart. Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart challenged the involvement of Peter Middleton, a non-qualified fee earner who had signed the Particulars of Claim and conducted virtually all of the steps in the claim.

This judgment matters because it fundamentally disrupts a widespread practice in law firms across England and Wales. For years, firms – particularly those specialising in high-volume litigation such as debt recovery, personal injury – have relied on paralegals, Chartered Legal Executives without litigation rights, trainees, and other non-qualified staff to run cases under supervision. Mazur makes clear that this model risks criminal liability under section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA), potential regulatory sanctions by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), and costs recovery challenges.

Below we examine the pre-judgment legal framework, analyse the core findings and implications of the Mazur decision, and provide recommendations for firms to ensure compliance moving forwards.  

The legal position before the judgment

Before Mazur, the statutory framework governing who could conduct litigation was set out in the Legal Services Act 2007. Section 12(1)(b) of the LSA designates "the conduct of litigation" as a reserved legal activity. Schedule 2, paragraph 4 defines this as:

  • the issuing of proceedings before any court in England and Wales;
  • the commencement, prosecution and defence of such proceedings; and
  • the performance of any ancillary functions in relation to such proceedings (such as entering appearances to actions).

Section 13 establishes that a person may only carry out a reserved legal activity if they are either an "authorised person" (defined in section 18 as someone authorised by a relevant approved regulator, such as the SRA) or an "exempt person" (defined in section 19 and Schedule 3). Section 14 makes it a criminal offence to carry on a reserved legal activity without entitlement. Significantly, section 16 provides that an employer commits an offence if their employee carries on a reserved legal activity without being entitled to do so – even if the employer itself is authorised.

The supervision ambiguity

Despite this framework, a critical ambiguity existed: can non-authorised employees conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised solicitor? Many firms have been operating on the assumption that they can. This belief was reinforced by:

  • CPR Part 2.3, which defines "legal representative" to include "a solicitor's employee…who has been instructed to act for a party in relation to proceedings";
  • Industry practice, particularly in high-volume litigation sectors where non-qualified staff routinely issue proceedings, draft statements of case, file directions questionnaires, and instruct counsel – all tasks ostensibly "supervised" by a qualified solicitor; and
  • Limited regulatory guidance: The SRA's public guidance is limited, save for a brief comment in its guidance on effective supervision published in November 2022 under the heading: “Reserved legal activities – litigation”. Also, some practitioners (and the SRA – see further below) have interpreted section 21(3) of the LSA – which brings employees of authorised persons within the SRA's regulatory remit – as conferring authorisation by extension.

Also, as noted at paragraph 22 of the judgment, the conduct of litigation under supervision was always permitted prior to the LSA, and it did not purport to change the pre-existing law, but it seemingly inadvertently did, although few seem to have realised this.

Pre-Mazur case law

Two cases provided limited guidance but did not directly address the supervision question:

  • SRA v Khan [2021] EWHC 3765 (Ch): Fancourt J held that section 16 of the LSA makes clear "there is a separate requirement for the employer body and the employee to be entitled to carry on the reserved legal activity". However, Khan involved a solicitor who had been struck off and was not about non-qualified staff.
  • Baxter v Doble [2023] EWHC 486 (QB): Cavanagh J emphasised that the definition of "conduct of litigation" under the LSA is narrower than might be supposed and "has been interpreted narrowly and does not extend beyond formal steps in the litigation".

However, neither Khan nor Baxter explicitly dealt with whether supervision by an authorised person could legitimise an unauthorised employee conducting litigation.

The gap addressed by Mazur

The critical gap was this: while the LSA clearly required individual authorisation or exemption to conduct litigation, it did not expressly address whether "supervision" created an exemption. Some firms and even the SRA itself appeared to believe it did. The SRA's initial decision letter dated 2 December 2024 (which was mentioned in the judgment) stated that employees of authorised firms "are permitted to undertake reserved legal activities due to section 21(3)"—a position the SRA subsequently disavowed in submissions to the High Court. This confusion created a compliance vacuum that Mazur has now filled definitively.

Core findings of the judgment

Sheldon J’s judgment can be distilled into three key findings:

Sheldon J rejected the argument (advanced by Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors and initially accepted by HHJ Simpkiss at first instance) that section 21(3) of the LSA authorises employees of regulated firms to conduct litigation. Section 21(3) defines "regulated persons" for the purposes of an approved regulator's "practice rules", "conduct rules", and "discipline rules". It includes both persons authorised by the regulator and their employees.

Sheldon J held that this provision "…is not extending the definition or scope of who is 'authorised' to carry out reserved legal activities, but is saying that for the purposes of regulation there are two categories: persons who are authorised to carry out reserved legal activities and their employees". In other words, employees of an authorised firm can be regulated by the SRA, but that does not make them authorised to conduct litigation.

The judgment draws a critical distinction between:

  • Supporting or assisting an authorised solicitor in conducting litigation (permitted); and
  • Conducting litigation under supervision (prohibited).

Sheldon J accepted the submissions of both the Law Society and the SRA that the LSA contains no provision allowing an unauthorised person to conduct litigation under supervision. He noted that paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the LSA expressly contemplates supervision in the context of "reserved instrument activities" (i.e. conveyancing) but contains no equivalent provision for conducting litigation.

As the judgment states: "The LSA expressly contemplates that there will be persons falling within category (a); that is, persons who 'assist' in the conduct of litigation... There is nothing in the LSA, however, which contemplates category (b): that is, a person who conducts litigation under the supervision of an authorised solicitor."

Whilst Sheldon J declined to make factual findings about whether Mr Middleton was conducting litigation or merely assisting (to avoid prejudicing any SRA investigation), he endorsed the SRA's suggested test; this being that the key question is whether the non-authorised person "has assumed responsibility for the conduct of the litigation and exercises professional judgement in respect of it".

An unauthorised employee who drafts litigation documents, letters, proofs witnesses, or performs similar functions under the final professional judgement and responsibility of a solicitor does not conduct litigation. However, if "on a true analysis and focusing on substance not form the non-authorised person was the one responsible for the litigation and exercising professional judgement in respect of it", they are conducting litigation unlawfully.

Implications for law firms

The Mazur judgment has potentially far-reaching consequences:

Section 14(1) of the LSA makes it a criminal offence for an unauthorised person to carry on a reserved legal activity. Section 16 extends this liability to the employer. Firms that have allowed non-authorised staff to conduct litigation may have inadvertently facilitated criminal offences. Whilst prosecutions under section 14 are rare, Mazur removes any lingering ambiguity that might have provided a defence.

We can easily envisage scenarios where (as in Mazur) defendants take issue with non-authorised fee earners conducting litigation against them. If successful, it could mean that firms may be unable to recover substantial costs incurred on litigation conducted by non-authorised staff, even if the work was otherwise proper and successful. We can also envisage challenges being made to judgments already obtained against defendants if the work has been undertaken by non-authorised fee earners. There are many other potential consequences too.

Paragraph 5.3 of the SRA Authorisation of Firms Rules states: "An authorised body may only carry on a reserved legal activity through a person who is entitled to do so". Breach of this provision may result in SRA disciplinary action. The SRA indicated in its submissions to the High Court that it would await the judgment before deciding on further regulatory steps in relation to Mr Middleton and Mr Ashall, his supervisor who made a self-report to the SRA.

The judgment poses acute risks for firms in sectors characterised by high-volume, low-value litigation such as:

  • debt recovery (as in Mazur itself);
  • personal injury;
  • employment tribunal claims; and
  • housing disrepair litigation.

These sectors have traditionally relied on non-qualified staff to run cases efficiently and cost-effectively. Mazur challenges the viability of this business model.

CILEx Regulation issued a statement on 24 September 2025 emphasising that "…the ruling has made clear that Chartered Legal Executives wishing to conduct litigation must hold the appropriate litigation practice rights". Many Chartered Legal Executives hold advocacy rights but not litigation rights. The judgment clarifies that they cannot conduct litigation (e.g., issue proceedings, file statements of case, instruct counsel) unless they obtain specific authorisation.

Clients who discover that their litigation was conducted by an unauthorised person may lose confidence in their solicitors. Insurers and funders may also raise questions about the validity of past work. Firms must consider whether retrospective reviews of case files are necessary and how to communicate any issues to affected clients.

What should my firm do to ensure compliance?

Firms should consider taking action to mitigate the risks identified in Mazur, including the following:

  • Identify all non-qualified fee earners currently involved in litigation, including paralegals, trainees, Chartered Legal Executives without litigation rights, and any other unauthorised individuals.
  • Review case files to determine the nature and extent of their involvement. Focus on whether they have issued proceedings, signed statements of case, filed court documents, or otherwise exercised professional judgement in the conduct of litigation.
  • Assess the risk exposure for ongoing cases. Where an unauthorised person has been conducting litigation, consider whether remedial action is needed (e.g., replacing them with an authorised person and, if necessary, seeking the court's permission to amend documents).

Key questions to ask:

  • Who is signing court documents and correspondence in each case?
  • Who is making substantive decisions about case strategy, settlement, and procedural steps?
  • Who is the client's primary point of contact, and are they authorised?

Firms should consider:

  • permitting non-authorised staff to:
    • draft documents (subject to review and approval by an authorised person);
    •  conduct legal research;
    • proof witnesses;
    • prepare bundles;
    • liaise with clients (under supervision); and
    • perform administrative tasks such as diarising and file management.
  • prohibiting non-authorised staff from:
    • issuing proceedings;
    • signing statements of case or court documents;
    • filing documents with the court;
    • being clients’ main point of contact;
    • instructing counsel or experts on behalf of the client;
    • making substantive case management decisions; or
    • exercising independent professional judgement on litigation strategy.

Practical example:

A paralegal may draft particulars of claim, but an authorised solicitor must review, approve, and sign them. A paralegal may prepare the documents for filing, but the authorised solicitor must take responsibility for the filing itself.

Whilst supervision does not authorise an unauthorised person to conduct litigation, proper supervision is essential to ensure that non-authorised staff remain within the boundaries of "assisting" rather than "conducting".

Best practices:

  • Require authorised solicitors to review and approve all substantive work before it is issued or filed.
  • Maintain detailed supervision records, including file notes of review meetings, approval of drafts, and sign-off on key decisions.
  • Ensure that the supervising solicitor has sufficient time and resources to provide meaningful oversight. Token supervision will not suffice.
  • Consider appointing a designated compliance officer or practice manager to monitor adherence to the revised task allocation framework to ensure that it is implemented successfully.

  • Solicitors and other authorised persons: Educate them on their obligations under the LSA, the Mazur judgment, and SRA regulation. Emphasise the potential criminal and regulatory consequences of allowing unauthorised persons to conduct litigation. Provide practical guidance on effective supervision.
  • Non-qualified fee earners: Ensure they understand the boundaries of their role and the distinction between "assisting" and "conducting" litigation. Use case studies (including Mazur itself) to illustrate permissible and prohibited activities.

Policy updates:

  • Revise your firm's litigation procedures manual to reflect the Mazur judgment.
  • Update employment contracts, job descriptions, and performance management frameworks for non-qualified staff to clarify their scope of authority.
  • Amend client care letters and retainer agreements to identify the authorised solicitor responsible for conducting the litigation.

Precedent updates:

  • Ensure that all court documents, letters, and other formal communications are drafted with appropriate signature blocks for authorised persons only.
  • Review templates for claim forms, statements of case, and court applications to ensure compliance.

SRA engagement:

Insurance considerations:

  • Consider whether you need to notify professional indemnity insurers of any potential claims arising from the Mazur judgment (e.g., clients seeking refunds of costs, challenges to past work etc.). A number of our clients have already sought to make block notifications to insurers of potentially-affected matters.
  • Consider taking out a Directors & Officers insurance policy, although it is likely that insurers would exclude any matters already reported to the SRA. Under the MTCs, only investigations arising from claims or circumstances validly notified to insurers are covered, but disciplinary proceedings are not (unless you have purchased this additional cover).

Conclusion

The Mazur judgment represents a seismic shift in how law firms in England and Wales must approach the delegation of litigation work. The days of routinely permitting paralegals, trainees, and other non-qualified staff to conduct litigation – even under supervision – are over. Sheldon J’s judgment is unambiguous: mere employment by an authorised firm does not confer the right to conduct reserved legal activities, and supervision does not cure the absence of individual authorisation.

The message is clear: act now. Conduct an urgent audit, revise policies and practices, train staff, and engage with the SRA and your PII insurer if necessary. We had hoped that the SRA would shortly provide guidance to assist firms with the consequences of the judgment although, after two weeks of silence following the judgment, the SRA issued a brief statement on 1 October 2025 stating “…Our view is that the judgment in the recent case of Julia Mazur & Ora [sic] v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP doesn’t change the position in law…” and refers to its guidance on effective supervision mentioned above.

It goes on to say: “…The onus is on firms to satisfy themselves that they are complying with the LSA, and only authorised individuals are conducting litigation. We recommend you should be recording your decision-making around the approach you are taking (see 'Recording supervision arrangements' in the guidance)…” Whether any further guidance will be issued by the SRA remains to be seen.

Michael Blüthner Speight

Michael Blüthner Speight

MA (Oxon), Solicitor
Divisional Director
Legal Practices Group