19/09/2025
The High Court’s decision in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) provides a valuable reminder to the leaders of large in house legal teams on management and supervision of non-qualified (or overseas-qualified) staff handling litigation.
The case involved consideration of whether a fee earner who is not a solicitor or otherwise authorised is able to conduct litigation under supervision, or support an authorised person who is themselves conducting the litigation. The underlying litigation – a debt recovery claim by a firm of solicitors against a former client – had given rise to a decision in the County Court that an unauthorised person had been entitled to conduct litigation by virtue of their firm’s authorised status. The appeal was against a costs order made by the County Court as a consequence of that finding, but necessitated consideration of the substantive issue.
Mr Justice Sheldon’s judgment does not reach a determination on whether the individual concerned was, as a matter of fact, carrying out a reserved activity – that individual was not personally a party to the litigation, and the decision was left to the regulator. However, the judgment reaffirms that, as a reserved legal activity, the conduct of litigation can only be performed by an authorised person, and supervision by a solicitor is not enough to bring such activity within compliance with the statutory scheme.
The Legal Services Act reserves certain activities, including the conduct of litigation, to authorised persons. In the Mazur case, the court was asked to determine whether a person who is not themselves authorised under the Legal Services Act, but who is employed by an SRA-regulated firm, is entitled to:
1. conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised solicitor; or
2. conduct litigation themselves, as an employee of the firm and by virtue of the firm’s authorisation.
Mr Justice Sheldon held that the answer to both questions was “No” ”, and that an unqualified person is able only to support a qualified solicitor who is themselves conducting litigation. Section 13(2) of the Legal Services Act 2007 provides that reserved legal activities may be undertaken only by authorised persons (as defined at s18 of the Act) or an exempt person (as defined at s19); an unauthorised person, and the individual under scrutiny in this case, was neither. The County Court’s reliance on s21(3) of the Act (which deals with the scope of regulation, not the scope of who is authorised), as allowing an unauthorised person to conduct litigation by virtue of the regulated status of their employer, was found to be “clearly wrong”.
In so finding, Mr Justice Sheldon endorsed the positions advanced by the Law Society and SRA, both of whom argued for a strong public interest in ensuring that only authorised persons can be in control of litigation (albeit that a finding was also made that earlier correspondence from the SRA in respect of the underlying facts, relied on in the County Court, had been erroneous).
The judgment leaves unresolved the question of what actually constitutes the conduct of litigation (rather than providing support to a person conducting it). No single codified list of activities has been established, beyond the statutory definitions of issuing, commencement, prosecution and defence of proceedings, and ancillary functions. Case law has provided some, albeit limited, guidance, and the principle has been established that the legislation, carrying penal effect, should be construed narrowly. In the Mazurs case, the SRA made submissions that:
“a non-authorised employee who assists a solicitor with conduct of litigation, even to a significant degree, by drafting litigation documents and letters, proofing witnesses, or similar functions does not conduct litigation because it is the solicitor who exercises the final professional judgement about how the litigation is to be conducted and takes responsibility for that judgement. That would be different, however, if on a true analysis and focusing on substance not form the non-authorised person was the one responsible for the litigation and exercising professional judgment in respect of it.”
The decision highlights the potential risks of using teams of paralegals to deliver volume, possibly fixed-costs litigation. It is clear that “exercising professional judgment” – potentially, the delivery of merits advice and decision-making on the conduct of litigation – cannot be delegated to unqualified staff but must be taken or at least approved by a qualified solicitor.
Bevan Brittan advise firms and organisations on complying with regulation of legal services. To find out how we can help you get in touch with Daniel Purcell or explore our site.
