Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP and Why You Need a Solicitor

Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP and Why You Need a Solicitor – findmeasolicitor.co.uk

In September/October 2025, the High Court delivered a ruling that has rippled through the legal profession and beyond: Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP clarified a fundamental point about who may conduct litigation in England and Wales. This might seem like a dispute between firms, but its consequences touch everything from access to justice to how everyday individuals and small businesses engage with the legal system.

Introduction

The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys represents a significant development in UK litigation practice and legal regulation. The case has clarified who may lawfully conduct litigation, a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007, and has challenged long-standing assumptions about delegation, supervision, and the role of non-authorised staff within law firms.

Whilst the Court did not declare the litigation in Mazur unlawful, it removed the ambiguity that had previously allowed firms to rely on internal supervision models. As a result, regulatory risk has increased, cost recovery may be challenged, and firms must now urgently review their litigation structures, workflows, and supervision practices to ensure compliance.

The Core of the Case: Who Can “Conduct Litigation”?

At its center, Mazur asked a deceptively simple question:

Can a person who isn’t a qualified solicitor, even if they work for a regulated law firm and are supervised by someone who is, lawfully carry out litigation?

The High Court’s answer was emphatic: no. Under the Legal Services Act 2007, the “conduct of litigation” is a reserved legal activity — meaning only someone who is individually authorised by a regulator (typically the Solicitors Regulation Authority) may take the lead on issuing claims, signing important court documents, and directing a case.

A paralegal, legal executive without litigation rights, or experienced caseworker can support a solicitor — drafting documents, preparing files, doing research — but they cannot be the person whose name and authority stand behind the formal steps of a court claim.

Conduct of Litigation as a Reserved Legal Activity

Under the Legal Services Act 2007, the conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity. Only authorised legal persons and individuals with personal entitlement to conduct litigation may perform these tasks.

The decision in *Mazur* confirms that:

• Employment within an authorised firm does not grant litigation rights.
• Supervision by a solicitor does not convert non-authorised staff into authorised litigators
• Law firms that previously relied on informal delegation or assumed that supervision alone was sufficient must now reassess these practices in light of heightened regulatory scrutiny.

Key Findings of the High Court

The High Court confirmed several critical points relevant to law firm compliance and litigation management:

• Only individuals with personal authorisation may conduct litigation
• Non-authorised staff may carry out supportive legal tasks, including:
• Legal research
• Drafting documents under supervision
• File and case management

However, the Court made clear that activities such as:

• Issuing claims
• Signing procedural documents
• Giving legal advice
• Representing the firm in court

constitute conduct of litigation and therefore require proper authorisation.

Although the Court did not invalidate the underlying proceedings, it emphasised that law firms bear responsibility for ensuring compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements governing reserved legal activities.

Implications for Law Firms and Legal Practices

The implications of Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys are far-reaching for UK law firms of all sizes, particularly those with high-volume litigation teams or extensive reliance on paralegals and junior staff.

Firms must now:

• Reassess litigation workflows
• Ensure all reserved tasks are carried out by authorised individuals
• Reallocate work to solicitors or legal executives with litigation rights
• Strengthen oversight of junior and non-authorised staff

Regulatory and Criminal Exposure

Regulatory exposure has increased significantly. Sections 14–16 of the Legal Services Act 2007 impose strict liability for unauthorised practice, meaning intent is irrelevant.

As a result:

• The SRA may investigate failures in supervision or delegation
• Firms may face regulatory enforcement action
• Criminal liability may arise in serious cases

Insurance and Cost Recovery Risks

Professional indemnity insurers are likely to:

• Scrutinise claims involving unauthorised conduct of litigation
• Question coverage where reserved activities were improperly delegated

Additionally, cost recovery may be challenged if litigation work was carried out by individuals without appropriate authorisation.

Broader Regulatory Trends

Mazur also signals a wider regulatory direction. The Legal Services Board is reviewing the current framework governing reserved legal activities, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is expected to issue further guidance on:

• The scope of paralegal work
• Supervisory obligations
• Authorisation boundaries within law firms

Firms should treat this case as part of a systemic shift, not an isolated decision.

Practical Steps for Law Firms

To mitigate regulatory, operational, and insurance risks, law firms should take proactive steps now:

1. Audit litigation workflows to identify where reserved activities are performed
2. Confirm authorisation status of individuals conducting litigation tasks
3. Strengthen supervision protocols, ensuring they are meaningful and documented
4. Update training programmes to reinforce authorisation limits
5. Review case management systems to track responsibility and accountability
6. Engage with insurers to confirm professional indemnity cover aligns with revised practices

Clear documentation of who performed each task and under what authority is now essential. Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys delivers a clear and timely warning to the legal profession: non-authorised staff cannot conduct litigation under supervision alone.

Law firms must now review how litigation is conducted, supervised, and documented to reduce regulatory, criminal, and insurance risks. Long-standing practices that once felt routine are no longer safe.

This decision marks a fundamental shift in litigation compliance. Firms that act early, restructure responsibly, and embed authorisation awareness into their practices will be best placed to navigate the changing regulatory landscape.

Why This Matters to You

At first glance, the decision may look like an internal debate in the legal profession. But its implications are broader and more disruptive:

1. Consumers Are More Vulnerable Without Clear Advice

Many legal providers — especially those in debt recovery, housing disrepair or personal injury — used teams of unqualified staff to handle litigation work cost-effectively. Mazur signals that this practice might have been unlawful, meaning clients could have unknowingly received services that were not compliant with the law.

For people who already struggle with legal jargon and court procedures, this adds another layer of complexity. It raises questions like:

• Was my case handled properly?
• Are my documents valid?
• Can someone challenge the outcome because of who actually did the work?

These are not abstract questions — they strike at the heart of fair access to justice.

2. Risk of Regulatory and Practical Confusion

The ruling sparked a flurry of concern within the profession. Law firms reassessed their processes, the Solicitors Regulation Authority clarified its position, and professional bodies prepared further guidance.

For clients, this regulatory churn can be bewildering. Who should you trust? How do you know if your prospective legal adviser has the right authorisation to do what they say?

Enter: Findmeasolicitor.co.uk— Your Guide in Uncertain Legal Waters

In an era where the law is both deeply technical and deeply personal, connecting with the right qualified solicitor is critical. That’s where Findmeasolicitor.co.uk comes in.

Here’s how the service can help:

Match You with the Right Specialist

Not all solicitors are the same. Some focus on family law, others on litigation, property disputes or employment claims. After a case like Mazur, it’s more important than ever to ensure that the solicitor you hire is authorised to conduct litigation specifically — not just “do legal work”. Findmeasolicitor.co.uk helps filter and match based on your actual needs.

Cut Through Legal Jargon

Terms like “reserved legal activities,” “practising certificates,” and “authorised persons” can be confusing. A key part of the Findmeasolicitor.co.uk process is ensuring explainers and support at your level — so you understand who is doing what, and why it matters.

Increase Confidence and Reduce Risk

The Mazur case shows how technicalities can upend legal proceedings if the wrong person is running your case. With Find Me a Solicitor, you’re pointed to professionals with a track record of compliance and expertise — reducing the risk that your matter could be jeopardised due to oversight or misunderstanding.

Get Tailored Support, Not Generic Advice

Whether you’re facing a dispute, want to bring a claim, or need to respond to one, having the right solicitor with the right litigation rights matters. Rather than guessing who is qualified, Findmeasolicitor.co.uk helps you access verified legal professionals who can confidently represent you.

A Legal World Where Access Matters More Than Ever

Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP is more than a case about litigation rights. It’s a reminder that the legal system — with all its technical safeguards — is ultimately meant to protect people. But those protections only work if you’re connected with professionals who not only know the law, but are properly accredited to act on your behalf.

Services like Findmeasolicitor.co.uk help bridge that gap — turning legal complexity into clear, actionable support for people and businesses alike.

Whether you’re dealing with litigation now, planning ahead, or simply want clarity on your rights, the right solicitor isn’t just helpful — after Mazur, it’s essential.