MAZUR v CHARLES RUSSELL SPEECHLYS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR LEGAL PRACTITIONERS

The case of Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys (2025) has caused significant disruption across the legal profession, with notable implications for litigation practice. The ruling by the High Court ignited debate about how legal work is delegated within firms and has been described as a “wake-up call” for law firms in ensuring compliance with rules governing reserved legal activities under the Legal Services Act 2007.

Facts of the Case

The High Court Mazur case arose from a dispute over unpaid legal fees between Mazur and Charles Russell Speechlys. The firm issued proceedings to recover the fees, but the defendants challenged the validity of the litigation on the basis that the individual who had conducted the litigation on behalf of the firm was not an authorised legal professional with a practising certificate. The defendants therefore argued that the individual was not authorised to carry out reserved legal activities.

The Statutory Framework

The High Court examined whether the individual’s activities amounted to the “conduct of litigation,” which is classified as a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007. Sections 12 and 14, together with Schedule 2 of the Act, state that the “conduct of litigation,” as a reserved legal activity, can only be carried out by an authorised or exempt person. The court concluded that the individual had conducted litigation when not authorised to do so, and held that only authorised persons (such as solicitors or other legal professionals with specific formal practising rights) may conduct litigation.

Furthermore, working within an authorised and regulated law firm, or under the supervision of a qualified lawyer, does not give an unqualified individual the right to conduct litigation independently. Non-authorised staff may assist an authorised practitioner and support caseloads, but may not act in their own right. Due to the scrutiny and wider professional disruption of existing practice models, the matter was fast-tracked to the Court of Appeal in February 2026.

The Appeal Hearing: Supporting Arguments

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) submitted that the original High Court decision in Mazur should be upheld. The SRA was supported by The Law Society, and their position remained firm: litigation must be monitored and controlled by an authorised person, and non-authorised staff may assist but cannot conduct litigation. Senior counsel for the SRA and The Law Society argued that nothing in the Act suggests there is an exception permitting unauthorised fee earners to conduct litigation under modern work delegation models.

Arguments Against

The effects of this case are especially noticeable for organisations that assist those who cannot afford legal representation and that rely heavily on non-authorised staff, such as paralegals, trainees, law graduates, and volunteers for representation. Mazur requires that firms and non-profit organisations ensure that such staff play only a supportive role, rather than taking over the official conduct of litigation. This could reduce access to affordable justice for individuals who depend on such services.

The appellants, including the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX), argued that the ruling would have wider consequences for legal professionals and would create uncertainty and disruption within the profession, describing litigation practice as being “in a real mess” if the ruling stands.

The Ruling and its Implications for Legal Practitioners

The judgment reaffirmed the statutory framework governing reserved legal activities under the Legal Services Act 2007 and clarified the boundary between assisting with litigation and formally conducting it. The law, essentially, remains in force.

For many law firms, the decision has significant compliance implications. Firms routinely delegate litigation tasks to paralegals, trainees, and legal executives. The ruling requires firms to ensure that an authorised person formally conducts litigation and exercises proper control over procedural formalities.

The case has prompted firms to review the delegation of work assignments, supervision structures, and internal compliance processes, as failures could render proceedings invalid, expose firms to regulatory action, and lead to disputes over validity.

Overall, Mazur serves as a reminder that the statutory restrictions on reserved legal activities remain strict, and that firms must carefully manage who is legally responsible for conducting litigation.