The recent High Court Judgement in Mazur v Charles Russel Speechlys LLP [2025] EWCH 2341 has sent ripples through the legal sector, challenging long-standing assumptions about who may lawfully “conduct litigation” under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA). While the decision does not alter the statutory framework, it redraws the practical boundaries between authorised and non-authorised persons within law firms, a distinction that carries significant regulatory and cost consequences.

For firms engaged in high-volume litigation, particularly those relying on non-qualified fee-earners or paralegals, the Mazur judgment demands urgent attention. It highlights both the potential criminal exposure under the LSA and the risk that work done by unauthorised individuals may be non-recoverable as costs.

Background to the Case

The dispute arose when Charles Russel Speechlys LLP instructed another firm, Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors, to recover unpaid fees from Julia Mazur and others. A key issue was the involvement of a non-qualified fee-earner, Peter Middleton, who had played an active role in preparing and issuing proceedings.

Mazur’s team argued that Middleton had effectively conducted litigation without holding a practising certificate or separate authorisation to do so. The court was therefore asked to determine whether an unauthorised person employed by an authorised firm could carry out reserved legal activities such as conducting litigation, provided they were acting under supervision.

The Court’s Findings

The High Court’s reasoning for Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys was unequivocal. Mere employment by an authorised person or entity does not automatically permit an individual to carry out reserved legal activities.

Under section 12 and Schedule 2 of the LSA, “the conduct of litigation” remains a reserved legal activity, and only those who are individually authorised, who fall within a statutory exemption, may perform it. The court expressly rejected the interpretation that an employee gains authorisation by virtue of their employer’s authorised status.

In doing so, the judgment also dismissed the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) previously held view that section 21(3) of the LSA extended an employer’s authorisation to its employees. The court described that regulatory position as “clearly wrong,” signalling a fundamental correction in understanding across the profession.

Conducting vs. Supporting Litigation

The court drew a critical line between “conducting” and “supporting” litigation:

• Conducting litigation involves steps such as issuing proceedings, signing statements or truth, instructing counsel, or corresponding with the court, all activities reserved to authorised persons.
• Supporting litigation may include administrative or preparatory work carried out under supervision, such as document review, evidence collation, or client communication, provided it does not amount to taking procedural steps on behalf of a party.

In practical terms, the boundary between these categories is not always clear. Each firm will need to assess the tasks delegated to non-qualified staff and determine whether those tasks fall on the “conducting” side of the line.

Regulator and Criminal Implications

The LSA makes it a criminal offence for an unauthorised person to undertake a reserved legal activity. Crucially, the offence may also extend to an authorised employer who allows or facilitates such conduct.

This aspect of Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has alarmed managing partners and compliance officers alike. Firms accustomed to delegating significant aspects of litigation to non-qualified personnel, particularly in debt recovery, housing, or personal injury work, must now consider whether those practices expose them to regulatory or even criminal risk.

The SRA has since issued statements reaffirming its guidance on effective supervision but has not altered its underlying results. The Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) has confirmed that the decision does not extend to conveyancing or probate, though the message is clear: firms cannot rely on broad notions of supervision to legitimise unauthorised litigation activity.

Costs Implications

From a costs perspective, Mazur raises important questions. If a non-authorised individual has conducted a reserved activity, the work may be treated as improperly performed and therefore non-recoverable in detailed assessment proceedings.

Costs lawyers and solicitors should be aware that opposing parties may not challenge fee notes or bills of costs on the basis that parts of the work were carried out unlawfully. Moreover, if an unauthorised person has purported to issue proceedings or sign procedural documents, the validity of those steps could be open to challenge.

The broader financial consequence is that firms may need to re-evaluate their staffing models. Litigation teams that rely on junior or non-qualified staff for significant case management functions will have to ensure those individuals either gain appropriate authorisation (for example, by obtaining rights of audience or litigation under CILEX or SRA regimes) or limit their activities strictly to support work.

Practical Steps for Firms

1. Audit Roles and Responsibilities

Conduct an internal review to identify which staff are performing tasks that could be deemed “conducting litigation.” Document responsibilities clearly.

2. Reallocate or Requalify

Where unauthorised individuals are performing reserved tasks, reassigning those functions to authorised solicitors or qualified legal executives, or support staff to obtain the necessary practising rights.

3. Strengthen Supervision

Effective supervision must not be demonstrable and recorded. Firms should maintain written protocols showing that non-authorised staff operate strictly within defined limits.

4. Update Client Engagement Letters

Transparency is key. Clients should be informed who is authorised to act in their litigation, and who performs support work under supervision.

5. Review Costs Practices

Costs teams should consider the recoverability of work done by non-qualified staff. Costs schedules and statements of costs may need revision to reflect compliance with the LSA framework.

The Wider Industry Response

Regulators and professional bodies have acknowledged the disruptive effect of the ruling but emphasised that it does not change the law; it merely clarifies it. Nonetheless, the implications are profound. Many firms will now need to adjust business models built around high-volume, low-margin litigation supported by non-qualified personnel.

Legal commentators have called for the SRA and Legal Services Board to issue further guidance to clarify the boundary between “supporting” and “conducting” litigation. Until then, firms must err on the side of caution.

How Greener Costs Can Support Your Firm

The Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys ruling underscores the importance of ensuring that only authorised individuals conduct litigation — and that associated costs are properly documented and recoverable. As a specialist cost-drafting firm, Greener Costs helps law firms navigate these challenges efficiently.

We assist firms by:

• Reviewing costs schedules and bills of costs to ensure work performed is compliant, properly recorded, and fully recoverable.
• Advising on delegation and task allocation to identify where non-authorised staff may have conducted work that could impact costs recovery.
• Providing practical guidance on cost management processes to reduce the risk of challenges or disputes.
• Supporting cost recovery in litigation and assessment proceedings so that fees reflect only compliant work and are defensible.

With Greener Costs, firms can protect their revenue, ensure compliance, and confidently recover the costs they are entitled to. Get in touch today to see how we can support your firm.