In this blog, our Deputy Senior Clerk, Stuart Taylor-Jones looks at the recent High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP and the ripples it has caused across the legal profession.
Mr Justice Sheldon’s ruling clarified that the conduct of litigation remains a strictly reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007. As such, an employee of an accredited law firm who is not themselves authorised cannot undertake such work simply by being supervised.
This clarification is not merely academic; it carries profound implications for Chartered Legal Executives and paralegals and, potentially, the way litigation practices are structured in England and Wales.
How did Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys arise?
The case resulted from out of a dispute over unpaid fees.
Charles Russell Speechlys instructed Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors to pursue the debt and Goldsmith Bowers assigned the work to their ‘Head of Commercial Litigation’, Peter Middleton. The difficulty was that Mr Middleton is not a solicitor, nor was he otherwise authorised to conduct litigation. However, he signed the particulars of claim and initiated the next formal steps on the record. The defendants objected. They argues Mr Midleton was carrying out a reserved activity unlawfully. Initially, the county court allowed the claim to proceed once a qualified solicitor had been substituted leading to the court ordering the defendants to pay costs.
On appeal, however, the High Court overturned this order. Mr Justice Sheldon held that the county court had erred in accepting that supervision by a solicitor could legitimise litigation work carried out by an unauthorised individual.
His reasoning was this is inconsistent with the statutory framework of the Legal Services Act. The Act maintains that conducting litigation must be reserved to those who are personally authorised; it is not enough for the individual to simply be an employee of a firm which is authorised nor can they be supervised by someone who is. While unqualified staff can assist with litigation, prepare documents or support case management, the responsibility and execution of the litigation process must lie with a qualified person.
What does the Mazur decision means for CILEX members?
For members of CILEX, this judgment arguably brings both reassurance and discomfort.
In terms of reassurance, as the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives has long maintained that only those members who hold additional practice rights in litigation are authorised to conduct it. The High Court’s ruling confirms this interpretation.
However, this could be outweighed by the discomfort. The decision exposes the limits of what many Legal Executives can do without all the required qualifications. It has underlined that even where a Fellow of CILEX is under the supervision of a solicitor, they cannot cross the line into conducting litigation unless they themselves hold authorisation.
The practical consequence for CILEX members is likely to be significant.
Many Fellows work within litigation teams, often actively working on files and even managing client relationships. After Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys, these arrangements require sharper clarity. Firms will need to demonstrate who the responsible litigator is for every matter and ensure that all reserved steps (e.g. signing pleadings, filing documents at court and making strategic decisions) are undertaken by that person. Legal Executives without rights may still play a meaningful role but as supporters rather than leaders of litigation files.
This is likely to accelerate interest in litigation practice rights among CILEX members as without them, a Legal Executive risks being sidelined in contentious work, limited to drafting or preparatory tasks while a solicitor takes the lead in the case. The Chartered Institute has recognised this and was already exploring reforms, including the possibility of standalone litigation rights that would probably not include advocacy. The Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys ruling will inject further momentum into these discussions given it has underlined how pivotal authorisation has become.
There is also a more sobering aspect.
Conducting litigation without rights is not only a regulatory breach but a potential criminal offence under the Legal Services Act. For CILEX members – and, indeed, for their firms, this reality increases the need for vigilance. It is not just a question of avoiding wasted costs or ensuring recoverability of fees but of preventing exposure to liability.
The Mazur case itself illustrates this: the High Court overturned a costs order of more than £10,000 because it had been premised on work done by an unauthorised individual. This precedent means other cases may now be scrutinised and opponents may well challenge costs claims if the work was carried out by the wrong person.
What could Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys mean for the legal profession in England and Wales?
For the wider legal profession, the judgment is likely to disrupt a long-established way of working. Many firms, especially in high-volume areas such as debt recovery, have historically relied heavily on unqualified staff and junior fee earners to handle litigation steps, with the understanding that supervision by a solicitor was sufficient. Mazur calls this practice into question.
Firms will now need to reconsider their workflows and redesign supervision arrangements. They will need to ensure only those with the appropriate rights conduct reserved tasks. This will almost certainly increase costs and resource pressures, It will also impact the cost-efficiency of volume-based models.
The judgment also raises fresh uncertainty. Although it is clear that signing and filing documents, taking formal steps in proceedings, and making strategic litigation decisions are reserved, the boundary between ‘assisting’ and ‘conducting’ is verry much open to question. This ambiguity could lead to further disputes arising. It also places regulators such as the SRA and CILEX Regulation under pressure to issue clearer guidance, especially since earlier advice on the permissibility of supervised delegation has effectively been discredited by the High Court by the Mazur decision.
Westgate Chambers would like to underline their commitment to CILEX members at this difficult time. If we can provide any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.