The High Court’s recent decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341(KB) has sparked widespread debate about who may properly carry out reserved legal activities, notably in the conduct of litigation, and the meaning of “supervision” in that context.
While the case concerned a specific dispute over costs, its implications may reach much further – into delegation, training and the future shape of legal litigation practice. The case has been described as a bombshell for litigation firms but there is room for some careful reflection here.
Background
The case focused on Bradford firm, Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (GBS), who had been engaged by Charles Russell Speechlys to enforce a bill of costs against Ms Mazur and Mr Stuart.
The Solicitor’s Regulation Authority (SRA) had previously told GBS that its employees could conduct certain reserved legal activities under section 21(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007. Relying on that letter, the County Court judge, HHJ Simpkiss, lifted a stay on the firm’s ability to pursue the proceedings at the initial hearing.
When the matter reached the High Court, however, the SRA stepped back from its earlier position. Mr Justice Sheldon found that their advice to GBS had been wrong. He held that while non-authorised employees can assist solicitors in conducting litigation, they cannot themselves carry out the substantive and predominant conduct of that litigation – even if closely supervised.
Key Points in the Judgement
- Paragraph 29: Sheldon J considered the argument that because an authorised firm is responsible overall for litigation that its employees can, therefore, be treated as conducting litigation lawfully under supervision. He rejected that interpretation, saying that legislation makes no such allowance. If an individual who is not authorised personally takes steps that amount to “conducting litigation”, then they are doing so unlawfully (possibly, even, criminally) – regardless of whether their supervising solicitor ultimately takes responsibility.
- Paragraph 42: He returned to the point in Paragraph 29 and emphasised that the statutory provision only allows non-authorised employees to assist with litigation. Where the line between “assistance” and “conduct” might fall, however, is the perplexing consequence of this Judgment and, as in so many other areas of law, we are left without clarity and obliged to consider “fact and degree” in particular situations.
In essence, the ruling indicated that the mere assertion of supervision is not a shield: the presence somewhere of a supervising solicitor in or over the file does not, in itself, transform otherwise unauthorised conduct into authorised activity.
If the unauthorised person is actually the driving force in the case and is being “signed off” by a secondary supervisor, as it were, then the requirements of the Legal Services Act will not be met.
This has cast doubt on the practices long taken for granted in many firms, where paralegals and trainees often “run” files, albeit under supervision – supervision which may, in truth, be rather notional.
Immediate Professional Concerns
For those with CILEX qualifications, the ruling is particularly troubling. Chartered Legal Executives must have independent practice rights to hold litigation files in their own name. CILEX has sought urgent guidance from its regulator.
The decision also creates tension, it may be thought, with the SRA’s approach to qualifying work experience under the Solicitor’s Qualifying Examination (SQE). SQE candidates, though not authorised persons, are told that a broad range of legal work (including litigation-related tasks) can count as qualifying work experience. After Mazur, the boundary between support work and reserved steps is uncertain, leaving firms and trainees in a difficult position.
Broader Implications for the Legal Profession
The Mazur judgement has the potential to reshape how the profession manages training, delegation and the delivery of litigation services.
- Training and Development of Future Lawyers: If non-authorised staff can only assist and not conduct litigation (wherever that boundary may be), there is a real prospect that paralegals, trainees and even CILEX lawyers without practice rights will be unable to manage a case from start to finish even with supervision. This could, arguably, leave new lawyers less prepared for independent practice, ultimately perhaps to the detriment of clients and legal firms.
- Confidence in Regulation: The SRA’s shifting position has raised questions about the reliability of its guidance in future matters. If firms cannot depend on their regulator’s advice then that is, frankly, a very unsatisfactory position indeed. It may be hoped that the SRA will explain itself rather more thoroughly than it has yet managed to do.
- Costs and Business Models: Many firms, particularly those in high-volume litigation, have built their models around non-qualified staffing taking on much of the workload. The doubts sown by Mazur may very well drive up costs, slow case progression and make lower-value cases commercially unviable if the mode of supervision on files has to be deepened. This, in turn, risks restricting proportionate access to justice.
- Retrospective Challenges: Although the courts value finality, opponents may be tempted to challenge previous costs orders or procedural steps on the basis that they resulted from work by unauthorised staff. Even the possibility of such challenges could become a litigation tactic and unhelpfully prolong processes.
- Need for Reform: Ultimately, the case highlights the inconsistencies within the current regulatory framework and its failure to reflect modern legal practice. There are proper demands for a comprehensive review of the Legal Services Act in order to bring clarity, update the rules and align them with today’s team-based approach to litigation – the more so when the profession has been under consistent economic pressure through fixed costs changes in recent years.
What Should Firms Consider Doing Now?
In the meantime, firms should act to protect themselves from risk, so far as they can. Practical steps might include:
- Appoint an authorised litigator for each matter, accountable for all reserved steps.
- Issue a clear Reserved Activities and Roles Policy, advising on reserved activities and who is authorised to carry them out, with written acknowledgment from all staff.
- Revise time-recording practices so that reserved steps are clearly attributed to authorised individuals.
- Provide training to ensure all staff understand the limits of supervision.
- Communicate transparently with clients about who is conducting their case.
Handled carefully, these measures can reduce exposure to potential liability, regulatory breaches or costs disallowance, while still maintaining efficient teamwork.
Conclusion
Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP has exposed fault lines in how litigation is currently delivered and supervised. Supervision alone will not legitimise work that only an authorised individual is entitled to conduct.
For now, firms must tighten their internal processes, while regulators face mounting pressure to bring clarity and reform. The profession as a whole – and the clients it serves – will be concerned to see how these issues are resolved, and how quickly.