The implications of the Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC case continue to reverberate across the legal sector, as Members of Parliament now urge the government to provide urgent clarity on who is legally permitted to conduct litigation. The Mazur judgment, handed down by the High Court earlier this year, has raised significant concerns for law firms about delegation, supervision, and compliance under the Legal Services Act 2007.

The Continuing Impact of the Mazur Judgment

In Mazur, the High Court reaffirmed that only an authorised person may carry out a reserved legal activity, such as issuing proceedings or communicating formally with the court. This ruling has unsettled many firms whose workflows rely on non-qualified staff to support case preparation and client communication. While the case centred on conduct within Charles Russell, its outcome has prompted sector-wide reflection on how legal services are structured and delivered.

The central issue lies in determining the boundaries between conducting litigation and administrative support. Many firms have traditionally allowed paralegals, trainees, and legal executives to perform certain litigation tasks under supervision. However, the court’s strict interpretation suggests that unless an individual is formally authorised to conduct litigation, such involvement may constitute unauthorised practice.

Calls for Legislative and Regulatory Guidance

In response to growing uncertainty, MPs have called on the Ministry of Justice to issue a formal clarification. The concern is that without guidance, firms risk unintentional breaches of the Legal Services Act, potentially invalidating work or jeopardising costs recovery.

The Law Society, CILEx Regulation, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority have each acknowledged the sector’s unease, urging a unified position on what constitutes lawful supervision. Many practitioners argue that existing regulations, designed nearly two decades ago, no longer reflect modern practice structures and technology-driven workflows. The challenge now is how to conduct litigation under supervision without breaching the statutory boundaries of reserved activities.

Practical Consequences for Law Firms

For law firms, the ruling introduced both regulatory and operational challenges. Teams must reassess how litigation work is allocated, recorded, and billed to ensure that only those properly authorised perform restricted tasks. Missteps could expose firms to compliance risk or even disciplinary action.

Firms are also reviewing cost recovery practices. If certain activities are deemed unauthorised, opponents may challenge their recoverability, potentially reducing recoverable fees. Given that many firms rely on supervised staff to manage case progression efficiently, the judgment may compel significant restructuring.

Sector Response and Future Reform

Industry leaders are now pressing for updated legislation or clearer statutory guidance. The Law Society has recommended a comprehensive review of the Legal Services Act, suggesting that definitions of authorised work and supervision need modernisation to align with today’s legal workforce.

At the same time, CILEx Regulation has voiced concern that the ruling may unfairly restrict competent professionals such as Chartered Legal Executives, who often manage litigation functions effectively within firms. Any future reforms must therefore balance consumer protection with practical workforce realities.

As the end of the year approaches, many expect that the government will issue a formal statement or consultation addressing the boundaries of lawful delegation and supervision. Until then, firms are advised to document supervisory processes carefully, ensure compliance with authorisation requirements, and seek expert advice where uncertainty exists.

Greener Costs Perspective

From a costs perspective, Mazur serves as a reminder that compliance and cost recovery are inextricably linked. At Greener Costs, we assist law firms in reviewing workflows, identifying risk areas in delegated litigation work, and ensuring that recoverable costs are supported by compliant processes.

By combining technical costs expertise with regulatory insight, we help firms adapt confidently to post-Mazur expectations, protecting both compliance positions and profitability.

Those looking for guidance or assistance in reviewing their litigation practices, auditing delegated work, or strengthening compliance frameworks in light of the Mazur judgment can speak with our experienced team today. Contact Greener Costs to find out how we can help your firm stay compliant, efficient, and cost-effective.