Introduction
The High Court’s judgment in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has been described as a “bombshell” for the profession. The case posed a deceptively simple but profound question: can an unqualified employee — such as a paralegal, litigation executive, trainee, or CILEX Fellow without independent practice rights — conduct litigation under the supervision of a solicitor?
Mr Justice Sheldon’s answer was emphatically no. Supervision does not transform an unauthorised employee into an authorised litigator. Only those who personally hold the necessary authorisation, or who fall within a statutory exemption, may conduct litigation. Others may assist, but they cannot themselves perform reserved activities.
This judgment strikes at the heart of how many litigation teams have traditionally been structured. For years, law firms have relied heavily on non-qualified staff to carry out much of the day-to-day conduct of litigation under supervision. Mazur makes clear that this model risks criminal liability, regulatory sanction, and cost recoverability challenges. The decision demands an urgent rethink of how litigation work is allocated, recorded, and supervised.
The Legal Framework
The Legal Services Act 2007 (“LSA 2007”) defines “the conduct of litigation” as a reserved legal activity. This includes the issuing of proceedings, the prosecution or defence of such proceedings, and ancillary functions such as entering appearances. Section 14 makes it a criminal offence to carry on a reserved legal activity unless entitled to do so.
Crucially, section 15(2) states that where an employee carries on a reserved activity in the course of employment, the employee — not just the employer — is treated as carrying it on. In other words, an employer’s authorisation does not confer entitlement on staff. An unauthorised paralegal filing a claim in their own name is personally exposed.
The SRA has long emphasised the importance of supervision, but supervision is not a statutory gateway. It cannot turn unauthorised conduct into authorised conduct. That distinction sits at the centre of the Mazur decision.
What the Court Decided
The County Court had previously taken the view that supervision within a regulated firm was sufficient. The High Court disagreed, holding that such reasoning was “clearly wrong.” Mr Justice Sheldon ruled that:
- Unauthorised employees may support an authorised litigator.
- They may not themselves conduct litigation, even if closely supervised.
- The correct focus is on who is legally entitled to carry out the reserved activity, not whether the employer is regulated.
The implications are stark. Litigation steps such as issuing claims, filing pleadings, certifying service, and signing consent orders must now be performed only by authorised individuals. Assistants may draft, paginate, bundle, or liaise with clients — but they cannot take procedural steps that commit the client.
Why It Matters
The reaction within the profession has been one of shock. Many firms now face the realisation that everyday practices may have involved criminal offences under the LSA. While prosecutions may be rare, the risks are more than theoretical. Regulatory scrutiny, contempt of court exposure, and reputational harm are all live concerns.
The decision also has immediate consequences for costs. Time recorded by non-qualified staff on tasks that amount to conduct of litigation may no longer be recoverable. Costs judges are likely to probe who actually performed key steps, and opponents may resist paying fees where the record suggests unauthorised staff were “running” the case.
For CILEX Fellows without independent practice rights, the decision is particularly disruptive. Many hold senior positions, but without a Litigation or Advocacy Certificate from CILEx Regulation, their role in litigation is limited to support. Firms will need to review responsibilities and consider supporting Fellows who wish to obtain practice rights.
Criminal and Regulatory Exposure
Sections 14 to 16 of the LSA impose strict liability. Carrying on a reserved activity without entitlement is an offence. Both the individual and their employer may be liable, and unauthorised conduct may also amount to contempt of court if it misleads a judge.
Although widespread prosecutions seem unlikely, the SRA has indicated that it is reviewing whether it has previously given incorrect advice to firms. That alone signals regulatory attention. Firms that do nothing may face disciplinary action, particularly if cost disputes or complaints bring non-compliance to light.
Costs Risk
The Mazur appeal itself turned on costs. The High Court overturned a £10,653 costs order because the lower judge had wrongly accepted that an unauthorised employee could conduct litigation under supervision. The decision also highlighted the danger of exceeding fixed recoverable costs on the Intermediate Track.
Going forward, opponents will almost certainly argue that work carried out by unauthorised staff is irrecoverable. Some may even attempt to reopen recent costs awards where the record shows non-qualified staff performed reserved steps. While finality limits retrospective challenges, costs budgeting, assessment, and enforcement are all now riskier terrain.
The practical takeaway is clear. Firms must narrate time entries carefully, showing that authorised individuals took reserved steps while support staff performed unreserved tasks. Clean records will be essential to defend recoverability.
Redesigning Litigation Workflows
The good news is that compliance does not require firms to dispense with paralegals, trainees, or Fellows. It does, however, require a shift to an “authorised-led” model. The key is to ensure that the responsible lawyer — a solicitor or other authorised person — is visibly conducting the case, with others in clearly defined support roles.
Governance and Role Clarity
Firms should adopt a clear “Reserved Activities & Roles” policy, listing which steps are reserved and which are support. Each litigation matter should have a designated “Responsible Litigator” (RL), recorded at file opening. Only the RL or another authorised individual should take reserved steps.
Supervision
Supervision remains critical, but its purpose is regulatory oversight, not authorisation. Firms should introduce structured review stages: strategy approval by the RL, drafting by support staff, and final signing and filing by the RL. Statements of case, certificates of service, and applications must always be signed by an authorised person.
Systems and Records
Case management systems should be configured to ensure only authorised staff have filing permissions. File notes should make explicit who approved and who performed each step. Dashboards and alerts can help RLs stay on top of deadlines, reinforcing their central role.
Training and Culture
All litigation staff should be briefed on Mazur, with role-specific training. Authorised staff must understand their personal responsibility, while assistants should be trained to prepare drafts safely and escalate appropriately. A culture that encourages staff to raise concerns without blame is essential.
Assurance and Audit
Quarterly file reviews by the COLP or designated partner should check three things: who the RL is, who took each reserved step, and whether the record proves it. Any near-misses should be logged, analysed, and addressed through remediation.
Special Considerations for In-House Teams
The decision does not only affect private practice. In-house teams often use mixed staff, including overseas-qualified lawyers, claims handlers, and compliance professionals. The same statutory framework applies – only authorised individuals may conduct litigation. Internal workflows must be audited, and in some cases, external authorised firms may need to front proceedings.
What Firms Should Do Now
The immediate priorities for firms are:
- Freeze filings by unauthorised staff and restrict portal access.
- Appoint a Responsible Litigator for each active litigation matter.
- Issue a Reserved Activities & Roles policy and secure acknowledgements from staff.
- Re-map costs recording to show authorised staff taking reserved steps.
- Train all team members on the new model.
- Communicate transparently with clients about who is conducting their case.
Handled well, these steps can protect firms from criminal, regulatory, and costs exposure, while maintaining efficient team-based delivery.
Conclusion
Mazur is not simply a niche costs appeal. It is a watershed moment for litigation practice in England and Wales. The High Court has confirmed that reserved legal activities cannot be delegated to unauthorised staff, even under supervision. For many firms, this requires a fundamental redesign of workflows, supervision models, and costs recording.
The message for senior management is clear. Reserved activities must be conducted — demonstrably and defensibly — by authorised individuals. Support staff remain vital, but only in roles that stop short of conducting litigation. Firms that adapt swiftly will not only stay compliant but also protect their costs recovery, regulatory standing, and professional reputation.
To assist firms in dealing with this, Infolegal has produced:
- a detailed guidance note on the Mazur case, covering its implications for firms and providing a more detailed explanation of the steps that firms should take in order to address the problems that may arise,
- a draft Policy on Litigation Roles and Reserved Legal Activities,
- some additional templates covering things such as an authorisation map, reserved activity checklist, supervision plan, incident log and client care clause, and
- an online course to inform staff about the key issues.
These are available to all Infolegal subscribers via the Infolegal InfoHub.
For more information, or to gain access to the various materials, contact enquiries@infolegal.co.uk