The recent Mazur judgment (opens a new window) has sent shockwaves through the legal profession by clarifying, in stark terms, what constitutes the “conduct of litigation” and who is legally entitled to carry it out. The ruling makes clear that unauthorised individuals, even when supervised, cannot perform litigation steps reserved to qualified practitioners. This can have significant consequences for law firms, in-house teams, where unqualified fee earners / paralegals are engaged in conducting litigation work; and clients alike, ranging from the risk of regulatory breach and criminal liability to challenges over costs recovery and reputational harm. Against this backdrop, firms must urgently review their practices and implement robust risk management measures to ensure compliance, protect their cost base, and maintain client confidence.
Summary of the facts - and why it matters
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (CRS) pursued recovery of unpaid legal fees amounting to £54,263.50 from Mrs. Julia Mazur and Mr. Jerome Stuart. CRS instructed Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (GBS) to recover the debt.
Court documents (claim form, particulars) were issued and signed by Peter Middleton, GBS’s “Head of Commercial Litigation”.
Peter Middleton did not hold a practising certificate and Mrs. Mazur and Mr. Stuart challenged the validity of proceedings on grounds that Peter Middleton’s actions amounted to unauthorised “conduct of litigation.”
Procedural History:
At Brighton County Court, HHJ Simpkiss stayed the proceedings after concerns that an unauthorised person had conducted litigation.
GBS applied to lift the stay, arguing Peter Middleton acted lawfully as an employee of a regulated body (invoking s.21(3) LSA 2007).
The stay was lifted, and costs of £10,653 were awarded against Mrs. Mazur and Mr. Stuart. Mrs. Mazur and Mr. Stuart appealed to the High Court.
Issues that this case has highlighted:
Whether an unqualified law firm employee (without a practising certificate) can lawfully “conduct litigation” if employed and supervised within a regulated firm.
Whether the County Court was correct to lift the stay and impose the costs order.
Decision:
Appeal allowed. Mr Justice Sheldon held:
The conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity under the LSA 2007.
An unqualified employee cannot conduct litigation merely by being employed by, or supervised within, an authorised law firm. Of course, by the time of the Appeal Mr Middleton has been replaced by a solicitor who was entitled to conduct litigation.
s.21(3) LSA 2007 does not create a blanket authorisation for all employees; reserved acts must be carried out by persons individually authorised or expressly exempt.
The costs order against Mrs. Mazur and Mr. Stuart was overturned.
Key Principles to consider:
Reserved activities under the LSA 2007 must be carried out by authorised persons (solicitors, barristers, CILEX litigators, or others with granted rights).
Supervision does not legitimise unauthorised conduct of litigation.
Staff may provide support in litigation proceedings, but decision-making, signing pleadings, issuing proceedings, or simply filing documents with the court are acts of “conducting litigation.”
Firms must ensure proper allocation of work to avoid regulatory and legislative breaches.
The Significance:
Clarifies that unqualified employees (paralegals, unregistered managers, legal executives without litigation rights) cannot lawfully conduct litigation, even under supervision.
The judgment reinforces regulatory risks under the LSA 2007 and confirms that breaches may affect validity of proceedings and costs recovery.
The outcome raises urgent compliance issues for law firms and in-house teams relying heavily on unqualified staff.
The decision has triggered further guidance from the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) (opens a new window) addressing the conduct of litigation and supervision.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA (opens a new window)) has published a statement explaining its view on the decision and its effect on the regulatory position. It is important to remember the statutory backdrop: the Legal Services Act 2007 defines “reserved legal activities” (including the conduct of litigation) and makes it a criminal offence to carry on those activities unless authorised or exempt. Firms must map day-to-day tasks against that statutory definition.
In this case, the focus is on litigation. But there are a whole host of other reserved activities that require consideration, and it is worth mentioning them here, as set out in the LSA 2007 (opens a new window):
Section 12 Meaning of “reserved legal activity” and “legal activity”
(1) In this Act “reserved legal activity” means —
the exercise of a right of audience;
the conduct of litigation;
reserved instrument activities;
probate activities;
notarial activities;
the administration of oaths.
The SRA details within their supervision guidance that.
“Where there is a requirement to provide direction, solicitors and firms may meet this (i) by providing clear prior instructions on a matter-by-matter basis, or (ii) by using a clear and appropriate work process to set out a compliant standard approach to the work and requiring any non-standard issues to be escalated to the supervisor. In essence, solicitors and firms will need to be able to demonstrate that they have directed the progress of any given matter (opens a new window)”.
How to decide whether a task is “conducting litigation”
You may wish to use the LSA 2007 definition as the statutory starting point (the Act lists the conduct of litigation as a reserved legal activity). Then apply the Mazur judgment reasoning and existing regulator guidance to the facts of the task. Tasks that involve giving legal advice, taking instructions, deciding strategy, issuing, or defending proceedings, settling claims, or representing the client in court are likely to be “conducting litigation.” But be wary as filing of documents is also considered to be a litigation step.
Tasks such as, drafting under direct instruction and clear supervision, or document management are more likely to be “supporting”, but the boundary is fact-sensitive: keep contemporaneous records of who made decisions. CILEX’s interim guidance sets out examples and cautions.
In practical terms if a task involves the exercise of professional judgment in any way, then it is very likely to be viewed as the conduct of litigation rather than support.
Immediate risks for firms
Regulatory / disciplinary risk where staff or the firm are found to have permitted unauthorised persons to conduct litigation.
Potential risk of criminal liability for individuals carrying on reserved activities without entitlement (LSA 2007). Criminal liability was considered in the case of Baxter v Doble & Anor [2023] EWHC 486 (KB) (08 March 2023) (opens a new window) which suggested a sensible approach might be taken in circumstances where an honest mistake has been made.
Professional negligence / client loss exposures if work done by unauthorised persons is challenged as invalid or leads to adverse outcomes (including potential adverse costs decisions or unenforceability).
Insurance / indemnity gaps if the insurer considers the work fell outside permitted practice rights.
Practical steps:
Where possible create an internal Mazur response team (This may consist of the following people: Head of compliance + heads of litigation + HR + professional indemnity contact + senior partner) and a paper trail to show compliance with the rules.
Triage open litigation files: identify matters where non-authorised staff have been taking instructions, issuing proceedings, signing statements, filing statements of truth, conducting case conferences, or doing tasks that might amount to “conducting litigation”. Prioritise those with imminent deadlines or hearings.
Freeze delegation transfers that might expose the firm (stop new matters being allocated to staff who do not have litigation practice rights until reviewed).
Client disclosure and retainer review: where an unauthorised person has carried out litigation tasks, prepare client communications and consider whether to seek client consent to remediate / replace personnel.
Consider engaging with your PII broker and discuss any potential coverage issues.
Check statutory authorisations of individuals doing litigation (solicitor of England & Wales, barrister, CILEX authorisation, or an express exemption). Use firm records and the relevant regulator registers.
Consider the costs benefit analysis of additional training / qualifications for CILEX members.
Detailed file reviews for a sample of matters and a full review for high-risk files; document findings and remediation steps.
Map tasks to the LSA 2007 definition of “conduct of litigation” and identify which tasks can legitimately be performed as support and which amount to conduct.
Update supervision policies do not rely on “supervision cures all” language; instead set out which tasks are strictly reserved and require an authorised person to perform or sign off. Cross-reference to SRA Standards and Regulations where relevant.
Staff reallocation and training: move tasks amounting to conduct to authorised fee-earners; provide targeted refresher training to non-authorised staff on permitted support tasks.
Engagement letter / retainer templates: revise to make explicit who will conduct litigation, who will support, and the client’s consent to that arrangement.
Remedial client-facing process for matters where issues arose, consider agreed remediation, counsel/solicitor involvement and settlement of client complaints.
Regulatory liaison: where appropriate, inform the SRA (self-report) (or relevant regulator) proactively if systemic issues are identified and present a remediation plan.
Workforce strategy: reassess resourcing model (use of CILEX-authorised practitioners, recruitment of solicitors, re-grading roles) and commercial impact. CILEX has emphasised the difference between supporting and conducting litigation in its statements.
Documented supervision and sign-off matrix: create a task matrix mapping each litigation task to authorisation requirements and required sign-off levels.
Record retention & audit trail: preserve evidence of supervision and authorisations for at least the period recommended for potential regulatory or court scrutiny.
Recommended checklist
Identify all staff who currently carry out litigation tasks and mark who has litigation practice rights.
Run a high-risk file review (hearings, Statements of Truth, issued proceedings in last 2 years).
Update engagement letters and client communications.
Implement a supervisor/authoriser sign-off matrix for every litigation step.
Where a firm is uncertain regarding specific compliance obligations, it should see guidance from the SRA Professional Ethics Helpline. https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/ethics-guidance/ (opens a new window). Should a firm identify any potential breaches, it ought to give due consideration to making a self-report to the SRA and include a remediation plan.
Insurance Implications – Firms should give careful consideration as to whether circumstances arising from the Mazur judgment may give rise to potential claims. If you are concerned, engage with your PII broker to discuss any insurance issues arising. A number of our clients have already sought to notify insurers of potentially affected matters.
Arrange targeted training for non-authorised staff on permissible support tasks and recording.
Final practical notes
This is not a call to stop all delegated work, but it is a call to review and, where necessary, reallocate who conducts litigation.
Keep contemporaneous records of decisions about who is authorised to act and why that audit trail will be central to defending any potential claim or regulatory issue.
Practical Implementation Steps
Draft a “Reserved Litigation Activities Policy” – circulate firmwide.
Restrict court filing/portal access to authorised staff only.
Mandatory designation of a Responsible Litigator on each file.
Staff training & awareness campaign on what tasks paralegals/trainees may or may not do.
Revise engagement letters to explain who will handle litigation steps.
Introduce audit checks on litigation files to ensure compliance.
Monitor regulator updates and adjust policies as guidance evolves.
Consider your internal culture and wellbeing of both non-qualified and qualified staff and the impact that these changes may have to prevent individuals and teams becoming demoralised and ostracised because of this recent judgment. It is important that you maintain a positive inclusive culture and ensure there is a form of certainty for non-qualified staff and support for the qualified staff that may now have an additional workload burden to manage.
While the Mazur judgement has reminded us all of the qualifications required to conduct litigation, it also offers firms an opportunity to strengthen their compliance culture and sharpen risk management practices. By clearly defining reserved activities, reinforcing supervision protocols, and ensuring that only authorised practitioners take litigation steps, firms can mitigate exposure to regulatory breaches, protect costs recovery, and safeguard their reputation. Proactive training, robust file management, and close monitoring of regulatory guidance will be essential to adapting effectively, and to turning a compliance challenge into a chance to demonstrate professional integrity and resilience.