What can only be described as a case that sent shockwaves through the legal profession has now left practitioners on the edge of their seats awaiting the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
Last September, the High Court’s decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] challenged long-standing assumptions about how modern law firms operate, ruling that unqualified legal staff cannot conduct litigation, even when closely supervised by an authorised solicitor.
Although the dispute itself centred on a debt recovery claim and the issuing of proceedings, the judgment raises a broader question with significant implications for legal practice. It has prompted uncertainty about what regulator bodies expect in relation to the role of non-authorised staff working under supervision, particularly for those involved in reserved legal activities under Section 12(1) and Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (“LSA”).
The Court of Appeal recently concluded a three-day hearing on the matter and has reserved judgment. Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, highlighted that the sector is currently navigating a significant regulatory ambiguity, and this anticipated ruling is set to offer essential clarity.
Background to the Dispute
The claim was brought by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP against two former clients for unpaid legal fees. Proceedings were issued in the County Court by another firm instructed to recover the debt on its behalf.
The defendants later challenged the validity of the proceedings after discovering that the individual responsible for drafting and issuing the claim did not hold a practising certificate and was not a qualified solicitor. They argued that the claim had therefore been conducted by a person not authorised to carry out a reserved legal activity under the LSA 2007.
At first instance, the County Court lifted an early stay on the proceedings, relying on the judgement made from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”) which appeared to support the firm’s practice of allowing employees to conduct litigation under solicitor supervision.
The defendants subsequently appealed to the High Court, raising the central issue of whether an unqualified employee could lawfully conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised solicitor.
The Legal Arguments and the High Court’s Ruling
At the High Court, Mr Justice Sheldon delivered a clear ruling rejecting the firm’s interpretation of the statutory framework.
Under Section 12(1) and Schedule 2 of the LSA 2007, the conduct of litigation, including issuing proceedings and filing formal court documents, is classified as a reserved legal activity. Section 14(1) further provides that it is a criminal offence for a person to carry out a reserved legal activity unless they are authorised or exempt.
The respondent firm argued that, as a regulated entity, it was entitled to allow its employee to act on its behalf under the supervision of an authorised solicitor, citing Section 21(3) of the LSA.
The High Court rejected this interpretation. Mr Justice Sheldon clarified that Section 21(3) simply confirms that the SRA has regulatory authority over employees of authorised firms. It does not confer authorisation on those employees to carry out reserved legal activities.
The court therefore concluded that employment by an authorised firm is not sufficient to permit an individual to conduct litigation. The person carrying out the reserved legal activity must themselves be authorised.
What Does This Mean for Legal Practice?
The implications of the Mazur decision extend beyond the immediate facts of the case because many law firms rely on teams that include paralegals, trainees, and other non-qualified staff assisting with litigation matters.
Historically, before the introduction of the LSA 2007, it was widely accepted that litigation tasks could be carried out by employees under the supervision of a qualified solicitor. During the Mazur proceedings, it was noted that the LSA was not explicitly intended to rewrite this position. However, the statutory wording appears to have done precisely that, creating a shift that many practitioners did not fully acknowledge.
Several factors contributed to this misunderstanding. For example, the Civil Procedure Rules define a “legal representative” broadly. CPR 2.3 includes a solicitor’s employee who has been instructed to act for a party in proceedings. In practice, particularly in high-volume litigation sectors such as debt recovery, it became common for non-qualified staff to handle much of the procedural work under the supervision of authorised practitioners.
This uncertainty was reinforced by the interpretation of Section 21(3) of the LSA, which some practitioners assumed allowed employees of authorised firms to carry out reserved activities under supervision however as mentioned the High Court’s ruling makes clear that regulatory oversight does grant employees the right to carry out reserved legal activities.
The Law Society and the SRA, both of which intervened in the proceedings, emphasised that while non-authorised staff may assist with litigation, the conduct of litigation itself must remain the responsibility of authorised practitioners.
For many firms, this was a stark wake-up call to rethink how their firm operates and how tasks are delegated within teams, ensuring the line between supporting litigation and conducting it is not crossed, otherwise they may be held criminally liable.
Scope of the Decision
It is important to note that the judgment specifically concerns the conduct of litigation.
The LSA 2007 contains provisions relating to other reserved activities, including reserved instrument activities, which may permit an unauthorised employee of a regulated firm to undertake certain work under the supervision of an authorised individual.
No equivalent provision exists for the conduct of litigation. The decision in Mazur therefore does not necessarily extend to trainee solicitors, paralegals, or other support staff working in areas of practice where the statutory framework expressly permits supervised delegation.
Conclusion
The Mazur decision has brought renewed attention to the statutory framework surrounding reserved legal activities and the practical realities of modern law firm structures.
With the Court of Appeal yet to deliver its judgment, the profession is awaiting further guidance on how the LSA 2007 should be interpreted in this context. The anticipated ruling is likely to be closely watched across the sector, as it may significantly influence how litigation work is structured within law firms going forward.
