Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] – What the High Court’s ruling means for the legal profession.
The High Court’s ruling in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP has very serious implications for the legal profession and non-qualified employees conducting litigation. This article will set out the background of the case, what this means for solicitors and non-qualified staff, and what the next steps are.
The Respondent (Charles Russell Speechlys LLP) carried out legal work for the Claimant (Mrs Julia Mazur and Mr Jerome Stuart); however the Claimant did not pay the legal fees in the sum of £54,263.50.
The Respondent then instructed Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (GBS) to recover the debt owed by the Claimant.
Peter Middleton, who was head of commercial litigation at GBS, undertook a large number of the steps in the litigation, such as signing the claim form and the particulars of claim. However, Mr Middleton did not hold a practising certificate.
The Appellant lodged a defence and counterclaim arguing that Mr Middleton did not hold a practising certificate and was therefore unqualified and not entitled to conduct litigation. This breached section 12 and 13 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
The Respondent argued that Mr Middleton had carried out a reserved activity under the supervision of an “Authorised Person”, as he had been conducting the litigation under the supervision of Mr Robert Ashall, a partner in the firm. Therefore, Mr Middleton was entitled to conduct litigation under section 21(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007.
Section 21(3)(b) of the LSA defines “regulated persons” as “persons who are not so authorised, but are employees of a person who is so authorised.”
HHJ Simpkiss agreed and held that Mr Middleton was authorised to conduct litigation under the supervision of the qualified solicitor and ordered the Claimant to pay the costs in the sum of £10,653. The SRA also confirmed in a letter dated 2nd December 2024 the following:
“Goldsmith Bowers Ltd is authorised under the Legal Services Act 2007 arrangements as it is a firm authorised and regulated by the SRA under the powers delegated to it under the Act. Its employees are permitted to undertake ‘reserved activities’ due to section 21(3). We are satisfied that Mr Middleton has not conducted a reserved legal activity without entitlement to do so, so are satisfied no further action is required on this occasion.”
The Claimant appealed the decision, and the case went to the High Court.
One of the core questions raised was whether HHJ Simpkiss made a mistake in deciding that Mr Middleton was authorised to conduct litigation under the supervision of a qualified solicitor.
Mr Justice Sheldon disagreed with HHJ Simpkiss.
Mr Justice Sheldon explained that there was a difference between conducting litigation under supervision and merely assisting an authorised person in the conduct of litigation and that this is a question of fact.
In this case, the Respondent conducted litigation under supervision, which in Mr Justice Sheldon’s view was not permitted, as Mr Middleton was not an authorised person and therefore was not entitled to carry out a reserved legal activity (the conduct of litigation), as defined under section 12 of the LSA 2007.
Furthermore, the letter from the SRA dated 2nd December 2024 had combined the meaning of an authorised person and that of a regulated person, which was a mistake. The conduct of litigation must be carried out by an authorised person, as set out within the Act.
Overall, the judgment from Mr Justice Sheldon was that non-authorised persons are only permitted to support an authorised person in undertaking reserved legal activity, as set out in section 12 of the LSA 2007. It is not permitted to undertake a reserved legal activity under the supervision of an authorised solicitor or as an employee of an authorised person.
The appeal was allowed and the order made by HHJ Simpkiss was quashed.
The ruling in Mazur has a serious impact on how law firms specialising in litigation work operate. Numerous large law firms rely on paralegals and unqualified staff to assist with cases and claims to make the firm’s work commercially viable. Many firms have unqualified employees managing their own cases, which are then supervised by a qualified solicitor.
The judgment infers that non-qualified employees can assist qualified staff as long as the work which they are carrying out does not fall under the remit and function of conducting litigation.
Firms going forward will now need to be very careful in ensuring that non-qualified employees are not committing a criminal offence by conduction litigation.
The case brings to the forefront the issue of what it means to be conducting litigation.
Schedule 2 paragraph 4 of the LSA 2007 defines conducting litigation as the following:
“The “conduct of litigation” means –
(a) the issuing of proceedings before any court in England and Wales
(b) the commencement, prosecution and defence of such proceedings, and
(c) the performance of any ancillary functions in relation to such proceedings (such as entering appearances to actions).”
To determine what falls within this definition, one must focus on paragraph 4(c) above and what work constitutes “ancillary functions in relation to such proceedings”. Work which does not fall within this definition is permitted to be carried out by non-qualified employees.
The case of Agassi V Robinson (Inspector of Taxes) (Costs) [2006] 1 WLR 2126 highlights how ambiguous the definition is. In this case it was held that, even though correspondence with the opposing party is an integral part of the conduct of litigation, that does not make it an ancillary function.
In the case of Heron Bros Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council (No2) [2015] EWHC 1009 (TCC) it was held that the definition of the conduct of litigation should not extend to any activity that takes place prior to the issue of proceedings and which does not involve any contact with the court.
Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M&E Services UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2865 agreed with the judgement in Agassi (above) that it must have been intended for ancillary functions to be formal steps required in the conduct of litigation, and therefore, for example, the service of a claim form falls within this definition.
It does appear that there is some consensus that substance must prevail over form when it comes to interpreting the definition. Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M&E Services UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2865 and Baxter v Doble [2023] EWHC 486 (KB) both agree that the substance of the work carried out is the test of whether the person in question has been conducting litigation. Activities which do not amount to the conduct of litigation (such as inter partes correspondence and work done prior to commencement of proceedings) can contribute to the overall “impression” that the services provided amount to the conduct of litigation.
Firms must act very carefully to monitor and ensure that non-qualified employees are not overreaching and committing a criminal offence under the LSA 2007.
Firms will now have to very carefully consider how non-qualified fee earners and employees carry out legal work. As outlined above, firms must ensure that the work which is carried out does not amount to conducting litigation; however what amounts to conducting litigation is up to debate. Firms will need to take even further care to ensure that their employees and the firm itself are protected from any potential liability.
It is highly likely that future cases will also debate the issues set out in Mazur, and it will be interesting to see what occurs and what guidance is given to firms to deal with the issues.
To book an appointment or to discuss this further, please contact the Litigation team on [email protected], 01732 770660
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Please note the law may have changed since this article was published. We do not accept responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the information in this article.
