Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechleys LLP

The issues over rights of audience and the conduct of litigation have been raised regularly over recent years. Most recently, the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) reopened the debate over the latter across the legal profession. The substance of the case related to an appeal over legal costs, and so the substantive rules of which are not explored in this article. However, the central topic of this article is the question which lies at the heart of the decision: who is entitled to conduct litigation?

The Law

The relevant provisions of the Legal Services Act 2007 ('the 2007 Act') are briefly explained below.

The 2007 Act defines “reserved legal activity”, which includes the following:

1. The exercise of a right of audience;

2. The conduct of litigation;

3. Reserved instrument activities;

4. Probate activities;

5. Notarial activities; and

6. The administration of oaths.

Paragraph 4 of schedule 2 of the 2007 Act goes on to defines the “conduct of litigation” as:

1. The issuing of proceedings before any court in England and Wales

2. The commencement, prosecution and defence of such proceedings; and

3. The performance of any ancillary functions in relation to such proceedings (such as entering appearances to actions)

Pursuant to section 13 of the 2007 Act, a person is entitled to carry out reserved legal activity either whether they are an authorised person or they are an exempt person. An authorised person and an exempt person are further defined as follows:

1. An "authorised person", under section 18 of the 2007 Act, is a person or body who are approved by the relevant regulator or licensing authority to carry out such activities. The relevant regulators and licensing authorities are listed in Schedule 4 of the LSA 2007. Usually, but not always, the Solicitors' Regulation Authority ('SRA') will be the relevant regulator.

2. An "exempt person" is defined in schedule 3 of the 2007 Act. This extends to include, but is not limited to, people who have a right of audience granted by the Court, people who are parties to the litigation, and persons assisting in the conduct of litigation.

Finally, section 21(3) of the 2007 Act states that ”regulated persons in relation to a body, means any class of persons which consists of or includes: "Persons who are authorised by the body to carry on an activity which is a reserved legal activity; persons who are not so authorised, but are employees of a person who is so authorised."

The High Court’s Judgment

The Appeal concerned a dispute between the parties as to whether a “Mr Middleton” had conducted litigation. It should be noted that Mr Middleton was an individual who was not authorised to conduct litigation. If it was found that Mr Middleton had conducted litigation, the question arose as to whether he was so entitled to do so as an employee of a regulated firm. This was an issue because the Appellants had challenged a costs order against them for the work undertaken by Mr Middleton. If, however, Mr Middleton was not entitled to undertake the work, then the costs of his work could not to be recovered.

The case was decided by Sheldon J on 16 September 2025. There were representations made by the Law Society and the SRA as interveners. The Court held that employees of authorised law firms do not gain the right to conduct litigation simply by being supervised. The Court indicated 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.

CILEX, the professional body for paralegals, CILEX lawyers and other specialist legal professionals in England and Wales has stated in a recent media release, which be viewed here, that:

“The Court ruled that anyone who is not authorised to conduct litigation cannot do so under supervision. You can support and assist an authorised colleague, but you can’t carry out litigation yourself unless you hold practice rights. This ruling does not change the position for CILEX members working in litigation, it simply reinforces the existing guidance; a Chartered Legal Executive who does not hold separate litigation practice rights is not authorised to conduct litigation. While some reserved areas of practice (conveyancing and probate) allow more scope for supervised work, litigation is different and has stricter rules.”

Analysis and Implications

There are important considerations arising from this decision, especially given the fact it has sent shockwaves through the profession and cause damage to the profession as a whole. This is because many firms allow certain unqualified staff to conduct litigation under the supervision of their principals, which has been a common practice for some time. However, the case of Mazur seems to suggest that such a practice is a breach of regulatory law and may amount to the commission of criminal offences (which can be found in sections 14 and 16 of the 2007 Act).

One of the takeaways from the Mazur judgment is that whilst unauthorised staff may support an authorised solicitor, they may not themselves conduct and control litigation, even if supervised. The consequence of that is that only an authorised solicitor can execute the reserved activities as listed above. This means firms which have such models in place will need to completely rethink how work is assigned.

Does the fallout extend to defective pleadings, costs challenges and indeed, potential criminal liability? This remains to be seen. However, there is a real risk that:

1. Pleadings which have been issued or signed by an unauthorised person will leave the claim being susceptible to strike out. This will, of course, be on a case by case basis. It does, however, bring an extra dimension to be considered in litigation.

2. There will be a significant increase in cost arguments. This could see either a massive drop or a massive increase in costs. This is because, if a firm relied on an unauthorised person to conduct litigation, the opponent may resist paying for those acts. That will suggest there is a drop in how much can be claimed. However, this is a double-edged sword: if delegation cannot be lawfully done, then it will require a higher graded fee earner (who can charge more) to carry out those steps.

There are then questions which arise from this decision:

• If those individuals are not authorised to conduct litigation in the statutory sense, is the entire fixed costs system on shaky ground?

• Does the decision cast doubt not only on who can sign and issue proceedings, but also on the regulatory assumptions underpinning the whole fixed recoverable costs framework?

• Will the SRA see a sharp increase in referrals being made to them due to this practice?

• Due to all of these questions, and the issues which have arisen post-judgment, does the judgment need to be appealed to provide clarity for firms, regulators, and clients alike? If so, does this need to be a "leapfrog" appeal to the Supreme Court?

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.