Civil Case Law Update by Fintan Molloy and Billy Torbett
Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)
On 16th September 2025, the High Court handed down its decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). The case provides important clarification on which persons have the right to conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007 (“the LSA”). It confirms that unqualified fee-earners do not have the right to conduct litigation even when under the supervision of a qualified person. The decision will have a significant impact on the way in which law firms structure their practices.
Background
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP instructed Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (“GBS”) to recover unpaid fees of £54, 263.50 from the Appellants. The claim was managed by a Mr Peter Middleton who did not hold a current practising certificate. The Claim Form was signed by GBS and the Particulars of Claim by Peter Middleton “Head of Commercial Litigation” at GBS.
The Appellants made an application for directions including an order directing the Respondent to replace Mr Middleton with a qualified solicitor. The application was opposed by the Respondent. Deputy District Judge Campbell ordered a stay of proceedings as he considered there was evidence that Mr Middleton was taking part in a reserved legal activity within the meaning of the LSA.
An application by the Respondent to lift the stay came before His Honour Judge Simpkiss. The learned Judge was referred by the parties to a witness statement from Mr Ashall of GBS who accepted that Mr Middleton was not entitled to conduct any reserved activity as defined in the LSA but that the work that had been performed by Mr Middleton had been done under Mr Ashall’s supervision. In support of the work that had been done, the Respondent sought to rely upon s21(3)(b) which defines a regulated person as including ‘persons who are not so authorised but are employees of a person who is so authorised.’
His Honour Judge Simpkiss decided to lift the stay but directed that the Respondent should file an amended Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, verified with a statement of truth signed in the name of an individual at GBS who was duly authorised to do so. The Appellants were also ordered to pay the Respondent’s costs of the application to lift the stay, summarily assessed in the sum of £10,653.
In his judgment, His Honour Judge Simpkiss relied upon a decision from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“the SRA”) not to investigate the conduct of GBS in relation to Mr Middleton following a complaint on 2 December 2024. The decision read:
‘Goldsmith Bowers Ltd is authorised under the Legal Services Act 2007 arrangements as it is a firm authorised and regulated by the SR[A] under the powers delegated to it under the Act. Its employees are permitted to undertake “reserved activities” due to section 21(3). We are satisfied that Mr. Middleton has not conducted a reserved legal activity without entitlement to do so, so are satisfied no further action is required on this occasion.’
Appeal
On appeal, the Appellants argued that His Honour Judge Simpkiss had erred in deciding that Mr Middleton was authorised to conduct litigation under the supervision of Mr Ashall; and that His Honour Judge Simpkiss had erred in making an award of costs (these were subsequently quashed).
The Appellant submitted that s21 LSA was concerned with the regulatory remit of the SRA and subsection (3) was merely bringing within the scope of that regulatory remit employees of authorised persons. In contrast, the Respondent submitted that that the conduct of litigation under supervision had been permitted before the LSA was enacted and the LSA did not purport to change the existing law.
The High Court adjourned the appeal hearing and invited the Law Society and the SRA to make representations to the court on the below questions:
‘Pursuant to the Legal Services Act 2007, is a non-admitted person (such as a previously admitted solicitor, trainee solicitor, pupil barrister, paralegal, clerk etc.), who is employed by a firm authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority:
- permitted to support an authorised solicitor in undertaking the reserved legal activity of conducting litigation?
- permitted to undertake the reserved legal activity of conducting litigation under the supervision of an authorised solicitor?
- permitted by virtue of the authorisation of the firm to undertake the reserved legal activity of conducting litigation themselves as an employee of the regulated entity?’
In respect of the questions, both the Law Society and the SRA answered (a) in the affirmative and (b), (c) were answered in the negative. Both concluded that an entitlement for an employee to perform reserved legal activities could not be derived from s21(3) LSA. This conflated the terms “regulated person” and “authorised person” with not every regulated person being an authorised person.
Decision
The High Court stated that the SRA were right to disavow the previous suggestion that s21(3) LSA permitted any unauthorised employee of an authorised person to conduct litigation. The conclusion reached by the SRA in the decision letter of 2 December 2024 that employees are permitted to undertake reserved legal activities due to s21(3) LSA is “clearly wrong”.
Section 21(3) defines who falls within a regulator’s jurisdiction for the purposes of conduct rules, discipline rules, and practice rules but it does not extend the scope of who is authorised to conduct reserved legal activities. The provision brings employees of authorised persons within the SRA’s regulatory remit but does not itself authorise them to conduct litigation.
There are two distinct circumstances in which a person is entitled to carry out a reserved legal activity. The first is when the person is an “authorised person”, defined at s18 LSA. The second is when the person is an “exempt person”, defined at s19 LSA.
Although unqualified members of staff are permitted to support and assist authorised persons in the conduct of litigation, they cannot conduct litigation themselves under the supervision of an authorised person. The distinction between what is “support” and what is “supervision” will likely be a matter of fact and degree in each case. The question is whether the person has assumed responsibility for the conduct of the litigation and exercised professional judgment in respect of it. The analysis and focus should be on the substance not the form of whether the non-authorised person was the one responsible for the litigation.
Consequences
The distinction between what is “support” and what is “supervision” remains unclear, particularly in relation to “the conduct of litigation”. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 LSA defines the conduct of litigation as ‘(a) the issuing of proceedings before any court in England and Wales, (b) the commencement, prosecution and defence of such proceedings, and (c) the performance of any ancillary functions in relation to such proceedings (such as entering appearances to actions).’ Whilst the statutory definition should be the starting point, it does not address which specific actions do or do not amount to the conduct of litigation.
The issue was most recently explored in the case of Baxter v Doble [2023] EWHC 486 (KB). Cavanagh J was of the view that the court should look at the activities of a person in the round to consider if they amount to the conduct of litigation. In that case, the court concluded that a legal executive who had drafted pleadings and arranged for service had conducted litigation despite not having signed the pleadings or having been on record for the claimant.
The SRA have initially responded to the case of Mazur by stating that the judgment doesn’t change the position in law and refers professionals to its existing guidance on effective supervision published in November 2022: https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/effective-supervision-guidance/. However, practitioners will welcome further clarification as to what amounts to “support” and what amounts to “supervision”.
There are no statutory restrictions on unqualified staff undertaking work pre-litigation or on someone who is an exempt person in relation to the conduct of litigation. However, Firms should be aware that an employer, even if authorised to carry out a reserved legal activity, can commit a criminal offence if one of their employees carries on a reserved legal activity without being entitled to under s14 to s16 LSA.
Until further guidance is forthcoming, any firms which use unauthorised employees to conduct litigation through the task of drafting pleadings, claim forms, and applications etc. will need to review and restructure their working practices.
Whilst in the case of Mazur the High Court declined to strike out the Respondent’s case due to the Applicant’s having not suffered any prejudice, firms which have used an unauthorised person to sign off or issue proceedings should be prepared for objections from other parties both to the substance of their case and in respect of costs.
The decision in Mazur also underscores the importance of recognising the diverse range of authorised professionals operating within the legal sector. In particular, it highlights the need for continued clarity and confidence in the regulatory status of CILEX Lawyers and other non-solicitor practitioners who are duly authorised to conduct litigation within their areas of expertise. Their contribution remains integral to the accessibility, efficiency, and diversity of legal services.
