Mazur: Round 2 - Appeal Allowed!

I covered the High Court decision of Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) in a previous blog post, which can be found here. The statutory framework will not be repeated in full in this blog post, but readers are encouraged to read the first post to get the full context. The decision of Sheldon J sent shockwaves across the legal profession; it provided an answer to often asked question: who is entitled to conduct litigation?

That decision has been appealed. The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment today: the appeal has been successful. The decision can be found here. In this article, I will go through the High Court decision briefly to provide the context, before summarily considering the Court of Appeal decision and providing some practical points to take away.

The High Court Decision

Sheldon J stated that employees of authorised law firms do not gain the right to conduct litigation simply by being supervised. The Court held that only authorised or exempt persons may conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007, and that delegation is not permitted within the broader framework. That reasoning has caused problems for, in particular, firms that rely on supervised paralegals to conduct files. This has resulted in: civil proceedings being dismissed for want of compliance with the regulatory regime and the Civil Procedure Rules ('CPR'), irrecoverable costs even if a party has been successful, and has also resulted in some firms having to completely revisit their business structures.

The High Court decision brought to light an uncomfortable reality: contemporary litigation practice that does not fit within the confines of the statutory framework. It has, in many instances, raised more questions than it has produced answers. The decision was appealed due to its sheer importance and far-reaching implications.

The appeal was brought by the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives ('CILEX'). CILEX is the professional body for paralegals, CILEX lawyers and other specialist legal professionals in England and Wales. A whole host of other professional organisations intervened or were interested parties, including: the Law Centres Network, the Law Society, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Services Board. It is notable that the Law Society and the Solicitors Regulation Authority were among those parties arguing that the High Court decision should be upheld.

The grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows:

1. Was the High Court right to hold that unauthorised persons were “carrying on the conduct of litigation” if they did acts that constituted the conduct of litigation under the supervision of an authorised individual?

   
   

2. What acts actually constitute conducting litigation? In this regard (and in relation to the first issue), it will be necessary to consider the correctness of the recent decision of Cavanagh J in Baxter v Doble [2023] EWHC 486 (KB), [2023] 1 WLR 2948.

   
   

3. Whether the working model adopted by Law Centres (whereby a group of authorised individuals delegate the conduct of litigation to unauthorised persons, whilst supervising their work and retaining ultimate responsibility for is contrary to the 2007 Act?

The Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal heard the appeal over three days in February 2026. It had originally been listed for a hearing date no earlier than February 2027. However, this appeal has been fast tracked, largely due to both the public interest and the potential implications on the legal profession. A big part of the hearing was that the definition of “conduct of litigation” for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007 may also form part of the central question for the Court, along with the simpler question of who can conduct litigation. The lead judgment was written by Lord Justice Birss. The judgment very helpfully contains a summary of the decision for each ground in paragraphs 19 - 31 before going into detail.

The key paragraph of the appeal is paragraph 187, which states as follows:

"An unauthorised person may lawfully perform any tasks, which are within the scope of the conduct of litigation, for and on behalf of an authorised individual such as a solicitor or appropriately authorised CILEX member, provided the authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person (both formal responsibility and the responsibilities identified at section 1(3) of the 2007 Act). In that situation, the authorised individual is the person carrying on the conduct of litigation."

As to the first question, the word "conduct" includes the requirement for direction, control and responsibility. An unauthorised person can lawfully perform any tasks, which are within the scope of the conduct of litigation, for and on behalf of an authorised individual such as a solicitor or appropriately authorised CILEX member. The authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person. The authorised individual is, therefore, the person carrying on the conduct of litigation.

As to the second question on what constitutes "conducting litigation", Lord Justice Birss held that whilst there was obvious desirability of clarity, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive list of all those tasks that fall within and outside the conduct of litigation. There were, however, some examples given as to what is unlikely to fall within the statutory definition of “conduct of litigation”

• Pre-litigation work;

  
  

• Giving legal advice in connection with court proceedings:

  
  

• Conducting correspondence with the opposing party on behalf of clients;

  
  

• Gathering evidence;

  
  

• Instructing and liaising with experts and counsel;

  
  

• Signing a statement of truth in respect of a statement of case; and

  
  

• Signing any other document that the CPR permits to be signed by a legal representative, as defined by CPR Part 2.3.

As to the final question, which concerned the working model or practice adopted by Law Centres. That model is governed by the same principles which fell under the first question, therefore there was no separate treatment of the third issue.

Analysis and Practical Takeaways

• The Court of Appeal decision can be summarised as follows: as long as there are appropriate safeguards, the working models that had developed pre-Mazur can stay in place. The individuals affected by the Mazur decision can breathe a sigh of relief.

  
  

• The Court of Appeal are acutely aware that there has always been a widespread and well-regulated practice of delegation by solicitors to unqualified individuals.

  
  

• The decision is somewhat critical of those present at the first instance decision. Indeed, Lord Justice Birss states that "This court has heard much fuller argument than either of the courts below. I would allow the appeal, but I do not find the result that the judge reached surprising. The judge asked for assistance, but he did not receive as much help as could have been expected." It is therefore crucial to be aware of such points in order to assist the Court going forward.

  
  

• The delegation of tasks by the authorised individual to the unauthorised person requires proper management supervision and control, the details of which are a matter for the regulators, not the Courts. Provided the authorised individual puts in place appropriate arrangements for supervision of and delegation to unauthorised persons, those persons may perform tasks that amount to the conduct of litigation for and on behalf of the authorised individual. This is an important caveat in that legal professionals may need to demonstrate that a system is in place in order to satisfy the regulators.

  
  

• Indeed, the unauthorised person is not carrying on the conduct of litigation and does not commit an offence. The offence found in section 17 of the Legal Services Act 2007 is to be construed and interpreted narrowly.

• As expected on the second question, the Court of Appeal showed restraint as to what amounts to the conduct of litigation; it is likely that this was done to ensure some flexibility exists. It is also likely to have kept in mind how the legal profession is constantly evolving and therefore presents a situation whereby the Courts are backed into a corner.

Please note that our posts should not be intended to be legal advice and should not be construed as such; they are merely discussions and therefore readers are encouraged to seek professional legal advice for their own matters.