The High Court decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP has triggered a flurry of panic and anxiety within the legal profession and caused the need for a sweeping re-assessment of how UK litigation practices must be structured and supervised. The ruling confirmed fundamental aspects of the reserved legal activity to conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007 (“LSA”), and prompted organisations including the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)[1], the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX)[2] and the Law Society[3] to issue fresh or updated guidance as to what could and could not be done.
What has emerged is a slightly clearer but far from settled framework for law firms, legal executives and support staff. However, the issues are far from over and firms must act now to review their structures, training and compliance to avoid unexpected regulatory or costs fallout.
The Mazur judgment and its immediate regulatory implications
For anyone recently returned to Earth from deep space, the judgment held, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that the “conduct of litigation” is one of the six reserved legal activities specified in the LSA. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed that an individual who is not authorised to conduct litigation cannot become authorised simply by being employed by an authorised firm or working under supervision of an authorised person. In short: employment in a regulated entity is insufficient — both the individual and the entity must be authorised (or the individual exempt) to undertake the conduct of litigation.
In the wake of the decision, the SRA emphasised that the law itself has not changed, although awareness of its boundaries has increased. The SRA’s “Mazur and conducting litigation” guidance confirms that firms must ensure that only authorised persons conduct litigation, and that non-authorised individuals only provide support to those authorised persons. Acting without authorisation is not only a criminal offence but may leave the individual and the firm in contempt of court and of committing a breach of regulatory obligations that may result in disciplinary action.
CILEX – which represents chartered legal executives and other non-solicitor practitioners – has also responded. Its regulation arm, CILEx Regulation, issued a “Mazur update plus next steps”[4] note on 8 October, confirming the judgment’s effect and launching application routes for litigation (and advocacy) practicing rights for CILEX members. The oversight regulator, Legal Services Board (LSB), has opened a review into how regulators and representative bodies ensured guidance on the conduct of litigation was “accurate and reliable”.
The key guidance points from SRA, Law Society, CILEX
From the various guidance articles issued by regulators, a number of central themes have emerged, including:
- The LSA’s definition of “conduct of litigation” currently leaves no room for unauthorised individuals to carry out that activity merely by reason of them being authorised. Government or regulatory commentary cannot expand that right.
- The SRA’s guidance states that whether someone is supporting or conducting litigation is a matter of fact and degree — the focus is on the substance of the role. Merely labelling tasks as “delegated” or “supervised” will not suffice if the non-authorised individual is in effect making key decisions or taking responsibility.
- The Law Society’s Practice Note explains that non-authorised staff can carry out many tasks (for example, drafting pleadings, witness statements or bundles), but the authorised person must retain responsibility for strategy, approving formal steps, exercising professional judgement, and giving final sign-off.
- CILEx Regulation emphasises that chartered legal executives without litigation practice rights cannot conduct litigation, and that pathways are in place for those seeking to obtain litigation rights.
- The SRA’s firm-authorisation guidance (updated on 15 October 2025 but not always specific to Mazur) underlines the firm’s responsibility to ensure that individuals within it are properly authorised for the activities they perform and to review supervision and competence arrangements.
In practical terms, therefore, firms are being asked to review existing matters and roles, ensure that where non-authorised individuals assist litigation there remains clear record-keeping of supervision and professional judgement by authorised persons, and that support tasks do not stray into the conduct of litigation.
Outstanding issues & calls for reform
Despite the new guidance, a number of unresolved issues remain. First of these are the grey areas surrounding the boundary between support and conduct. The Law Society acknowledges these grey areas and provides references to a number of cases that have considered what constitutes litigation including Heron Bros Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council (No 2) [2015] EWHC 1009 (TCC)[5], Agassi v Robinson (Inspector of Taxes) (Costs) [2006] 1 WLR[6] and Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M&E Services UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2865[7]. Firms remain uncertain as to precisely which tasks fall into the reserved category. The lack of a bright-line definition is causing caution and operational strain.
Secondly, there have been a significant number of calls for legislative reform. The CILEX community has petitioned for a change to the Legal Services Act 2007 to allow chartered legal executives to conduct litigation in a standalone capacity (without mandatory advocacy rights) and to decouple litigation/advocacy rights. The LSB statement notes receipt of an application from CILEx Regulation “to enable its regulated community to obtain standalone litigation practice rights”. Many firms and legal executives argue that the current regime is outdated and limits access to justice and efficient service delivery, particularly in high-volume claims departments.
Thirdly, there is the question of retrospective liability and enforcement. Firms that have used non-authorised staff to conduct litigation in the past are reporting alarm. The Law Society Gazette of 24 October carried a report of an address by Gregory Treverton-Jones KC to a seminar hosted by 39 Essex Chambers calling on the SRA to “lift the threat of pre-Mazur prosecutions”. The worry is that firms may face regulatory scrutiny or cost recovery challenges for matters currently or previously handled contrary to the judgment’s strict interpretation. Some larger firms are already undertaking remediation of live and concluded matters.
Fourthly, firms operating in high-volume consumer claims or bulk litigation face immediate operational strains including the need to shift work from non-authorised staff to authorised fee-earners leading to increased costs and creating resourcing issues. The SRA Update (Issue 144) had already flagged concerns in the high-volume claims market and Mazur can only increase the risks that exist within this area.
What firms should do now
Many firms have been left in the position of asking what they should be doing now. From a practical compliance perspective, the following points emerge (in line with the official guidance):
- Undertake an urgent internal review of all litigation matters (live and in the pipeline) to identify whether any have been conducted or are being conducted by non-authorised individuals, and assess whether appropriate supervision and record-keeping are in place.
- Clarify roles within matters: for each litigation file ensure that the authorised practitioner is clearly documented as taking responsibility for strategy, decisions, sign-off of formal steps, and professional judgment.
- Update internal policies and training on supervision, delegation, support vs. conduct, and ensure non-authorised staff are aware of the limits of their role (i.e., supporting rather than conducting litigation).
- Maintain contemporaneous records of supervisory arrangements: which authorised person reviewed and approved the file, which tasks were delegated, how oversight was exercised. The SRA emphasises this record-keeping.
- Assess the business model: if significant work is conducted by staff who are not authorised to litigate then consider restructure or recruitment of authorised fee-earners, and consider cost-implications of moving work up the chain.
- Consider potential cost recovery risks: opposing parties may challenge the recoverability of costs where litigation has been conducted by non-authorised persons; firms may need bespoke advice.
- Keep abreast of developments: the CILEx routes for litigation practice rights are being prioritised, and there may be changes to the regulatory framework or legislation (e.g., the LSA) in due course.
- For firms of chartered legal executives / CILEX-qualified staff in litigation roles: assess whether individuals need to apply for litigation practice rights and plan for the application process (including portfolio/assessment/training routes outlined by CILEx Regulation).
Why this matters for the profession
The Mazur decision and the regulatory response have several wider implications for legal practice. First, the cost and resource pressures inherent in repositioning work flows may impact profitability, particularly in volume litigation operations. Firms will need to budget for additional authorised fee-earner time or to reconfigure work. Secondly, access to justice concerns may be sharpened: if fewer individuals are authorised to litigate, there is a risk of increased cost or delay for clients. Thirdly, the reputational and regulatory risk is real: failure to recognise the boundary between support and conduct could lead to investigation by the SRA or other regulators, and to undermining of cost recovery and client-service models.
In regulatory terms, the Mazur judgment has exposed a strain between the professional ambition of legal executives (who argue for conduct rights) and the traditional solicitors-centred regulatory model. Legislative reform may follow, but in the interim the regulatory risk lies with law firms and their compliance teams.
Finally, from a training and governance perspective, the decision highlights the importance of supervisory structures, robust firm authorisation processes and the active role of the authorised person. It is no longer sufficient simply to assume that supervision is enough — the nature, quality and documentation of oversight will be scrutinised.
Conclusion
The Mazur decision has been a watershed moment, not because the law has changed but because longstanding assumptions in litigation practice no longer hold safe harbour. The SRA, Law Society and CILEX have responded quickly with guidance, but the profession still faces uncertainty in the fine-detail of the “support versus conduct” boundary, the scope of chartered legal executive rights, and retrospective risk exposure. For solicitors’ firms, senior managers and compliance officers, the message is clear: act now to review arrangements, train staff, document supervision and ensure the firm is aligned with the regulatory reality. The cost of delay or inaction may prove significant.
[1] https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/firm-authorisation/
[2] https://cilexregulation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Revised-Interim-CRL-guidance-the-conduct-of-litigation-v4.pdf
[3] https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/regulation/mazur-and-the-conduct-of-litigation
[4] https://cilexregulation.org.uk/2025/10/08/mazur-update-plus-next-steps/
[5] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2015/1009.html
[6] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060517/agasro-1.htm