The English High Court decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) (Mazur) has caused alarm among litigators. The decision is significant in that it clarifies who is entitled to conduct litigation in England and Wales. While the SRA has confirmed its view that the court's decision does not change the position in law, the reaction to the case is revealing, and many law firms will be giving careful consideration to the work being done by those without practicing certificates.
Background
The facts of the underlying dispute are unremarkable. The respondent law firm undertook legal work for the appellants, Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart, who failed to pay the resulting fees of £54,263.50. Another firm, Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (GBS), was instructed to pursue the debt against the appellants. GBS issued a claim, with a Claim Form signed in the name of the firm and Particulars of Claim signed by Peter Middleton, Head of Commercial Litigation at GBS.
However, the appellants took issue with the fact that Mr Middleton, who they (perhaps not unreasonably) considered was conducting the litigation against them, did not hold a current practising certificate. The appellants applied for directions, including an order directing the respondent to replace Mr Middleton with a qualified solicitor. A stay ordered on the basis that it appeared there was evidence that Mr Middleton was taking part in "reserved activity" within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA). Specifically, it appeared that Mr Middleton was conducting the litigation against the appellants.
When the respondent applied to lift the stay, it argued that Mr Middleton was entitled to perform the work that he had. It was said that he was deemed to be authorised to conduct litigation as a result of section 21(3)(b) of the LSA. The court also received witness evidence from a partner at GBS confirming that Mr Middleton took the steps that he did in support of the partner in the conduct of litigation and under his supervision. The witness statement explained:
"As a firm specialising in commercial debt recovery, GBS employs a number of non-authorised fee earners, all of whom issue proceedings in support of myself and the other Authorised Persons within the business. This is the norm in commercial debt recovery."
In any case, by this time Mr Middleton had been replaced on the matter by a practising solicitor. HHJ Simpkiss lifted the stay and ordered the respondent file an amended Claim Form and Particulars of Claim verified with a statement of truth signed by an individual at GBS who was authorised to do so. HHJ Simkiss referred to the change of individual conducting the litigation (meaning there was no longer any breach of the LSA if there ever had been) and the fact that the SRA appeared to have confirmed that Mr Middleton had authority to conduct litigation under supervision in any case. A costs order was made in favour of the respondent.
The issues for determination on appeal
On appeal, the Hight Court was required to determine whether or not His Honour Judge Simpkiss erred in deciding that Mr Middleton was authorised to conduct litigation under the supervision of Mr Ashall. In addition to the parties' submissions, both the Law Society and the SRA made representations. Both organisations were clear that, pursuant to the LSA, a non-admitted person who is employed by a firm authorised and regulated by the SRA:
- Is permitted to support an authorised solicitor in undertaking the reserved legal activity of conducting litigation; but
- Is not permitted to undertake the reserved legal activity of conducting litigation under the supervision of an authorised solicitor; and
- Is not permitted by virtue of the authorisation of the firm to undertake the reserved legal activity of conducting litigation themselves as an employee of the regulated entity.
The decision in Mazurs
Sheldon J's judgment confirms that, pursuant to the LSA, only an authorised lawyer may carry out reserved legal work, which includes conducting litigation, even under supervision.
S21(3) of the LSA had been relied upon by the respondents but did not assist. It does not have the effect of enabling non-authorised individuals to conduct litigation by virtue of their employment by an authorised person. The subsection reads as follows:
"In this section “regulated persons” , in relation to a body, means any class of persons which consists of or includes–
(a) persons who are authorised by the body to carry on an activity which is a reserved legal activity;
(b) persons who are not so authorised, but are employees of a person who is so authorised."
This provision extends the scope of the SRA's regulatory remit, but it does not extend authority to undertake reserved legal activities to those who do not have such authority.
The SRA response
The SRA has stated that Mazurs does not change the law. In a statement published at the beginning of October the SRA referred to its existing guidance (dated November 2022) which states that:
"People who are not themselves authorised to conduct litigation can only support authorised individuals to conduct litigation, rather than conducting litigation themselves under the supervision of an authorised individual."
What does it mean in practice?
The decision reinforces the significance of the distinction between supporting with and conducting litigation. According to the judgment (and SRA guidance), where the line should be drawn between the two will depend on the facts and may not always be clearcut. Under the Legal Services Act 2007, conducting litigation includes issuing court proceedings, the commencement, prosecution and defence of such proceedings and the performance of any ancillary functions in relation to such proceedings.
Some activities are clearly off limits for those without a practicing certificate – issuing claims, signing statements of truth and making strategic decisions about the case, for example. That means it's important to identify who is undertaking key tasks on a case but also who is exercising professional judgment in respect of the litigation.
The SRA has been clear that "the onus is on firms to satisfy themselves that they are complying with the LSA, and only authorised individuals are conducting litigation". As such, law firms, and particularly those relying more heavily on employees without practicing certificates, will need to carefully consider their practices in light of the judgment.
