Authored By: CHIDIEBERE PRISCILLA, CHIKELU
Court reference:
- Mazur and another versus Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, decided in 2025 at the King’s Bench Division of the High Court under case number EWHC 2341 (KB), paragraph 345.
- Appeal Court handles civil case: Mazur and Stuart against law firm Charles Russell Speechlys plus additional parties. Decision recorded as [2026] EWCA Civ 36921113.
Introduction
One choice in Mazur against Charles Russell Speechlys LLP clears up what counts as “conduct of litigation” according to the Legal Services Act 2007. This moment touches on a deep clash today – rules say only approved people can do specific legal tasks, yet real-world cases show such duties often fall to team members like paralegals or trainees who lack formal authorisation.
Out of nowhere, the High Court narrowed how supervision works, hinting it might be illegal even when overseen properly. Then came the appeal court, swinging back hard – backing supervision again but demanding clearer proof and tighter oversight from those given authority. This shift matters deeply – not just in legal theory, but for how firms operate, follow rules, reach people who need help.
Facts And Procedural History
A law firm named Charles Russell Speechlys LLP hired Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors to collect unpaid fees from two individuals, Julia Mazur and Jerome Stuart. During that process, the official statement detailing the claim was signed by a senior employee involved in litigation matters. That individual did not possess a valid practising certificate. Because of this, they were not considered an authorised person as defined by the LSA.
Out of nowhere, the defence questioned whether things went properly. Since only certain people can handle court processes – thanks to rules spelled out in sections 12 and 14 of the LSA – the act of drafting those claim details mattered greatly. One person who wasn’t allowed did the work. That mistake cast doubt on everything that followed. Because of it, they said, the case shouldn’t move forward. Either stop it now or throw it out completely.
Out of nowhere, details blurred into something larger – a single problem became a courtroom puzzle. Not long after, attention shifted away from what actually happened toward a thornier concern. Could assigning standard legal work to watched yet unlicensed helpers cross a line? The situation turned on supervision without credentials. One small step in paperwork might count as practicing law by stealth. What seemed normal now looked risky under scrutiny. A quiet habit in many offices suddenly faced hard questions.
Nowhere was the reaction stronger than among lawyers when the High Court sided with the defendants. Regulators started hearing about it – especially the SRA – as unease spread through law offices. Wider questions meant the matter could not stay put, so it moved up to the Court of Appeal. Only there might answers take shape beyond just one ruling.
High Court Decision
Out in the High Court, Sheldon J stuck close to the words written in law. Not broadening their reach, he saw “to carry on the conduct of litigation” as limited by design. Only those properly authorised could take part in such work, according to his view. Narrowness shaped how the rule applied – no stretching its meaning beyond what appeared on paper.
Because of this thinking, just having a supervisor around didn’t make it okay. When the work counted as handling litigation – like drafting or filing court documents – the person doing it needed proper authorisation. Without that status, such actions could break s.14 LSA, since only approved individuals may do legally protected tasks.
Because of this view, doing legal work started to mean running a case. So simple things like assigning jobs to paralegals might count as breaking the law.
Right away, things got serious. This move put standard routines at many legal offices on shaky ground – especially where trained but unlicensed workers handle tasks under oversight. Suddenly, old cases faced possible objections just because of how they were managed. On top of that, knowing what counted as correct procedure became much less clear.
Court of Appeal Ruling
Now things shifted when the appeals judges stepped in, tossing out what the higher court had ruled by reading the LSA with an eye on real-world function instead of strict wording.
It turned out someone without authorisation can still do work counted as part of running a legal case – if it’s done under the guidance of a licensed professional who stays accountable. That qualified individual must be actively steering, overseeing, and calling the shots throughout. What matters is they keep firm oversight, shaping how each step unfolds.
Not every boundary was blurred. What mattered here stood apart from what did not. Lines formed where differences showed themselves plainly. One thing separated cleanly from the next. Clarity came through contrast, nothing more than Performing individual litigation tasks; and Keeping up the work of handling a case from start to finish.
Who really runs the case matters more than who does the small jobs. When oversight is correct, the law sees the approved person in charge, even if tasks are handed off. Responsibility stays with that main figure under the LSA rules. Not every action shifts legal conduct to someone else. Oversight keeps authority clear. The key player remains the one calling the shots.
It was clear to the judges that strict rules for oversight shouldn’t come straight from court rulings. Instead, groups like the SRA ought to shape them more naturally. Guidance from organisations including the Law Society tends to fit real situations better. Rigid frameworks rarely match how things actually work on the ground. Flexibility matters when setting expectations. Courts stepping back allows room for practical adjustments over time.
Comparing Two Choices
The divergence between the High Court and Court of Appeal can be understood across several key dimensions.
Right off, when it came to deciding who can run legal cases, the High Court stuck to a tight rule: just licensed individuals could do anything tied to court work. Instead, the Court of Appeal leaned into oversight, letting tasks be handed down so long as the qualified person stayed accountable.
Later, when looking at whether handing tasks to others fits within legal boundaries, the High Court hinted that passing on certain duties might break rules if those duties are protected by law. Instead, the Court of Appeal saw it differently – saying such handovers stay inside legal limits so long as proper oversight exists and can be shown.
One point stood out: judges did not agree on how much power oversight agencies should hold. Strict reading of the law shaped the High Court’s stance, which narrowed space for agency discretion. By contrast, choices made by regulators were given weight on appeal, where judgment leaned into their expertise to shape rules and expectations.
At last, real-world outcomes split wide apart. While the High Court’s method could freeze daily operations while lifting expenses, the Court of Appeal kept current systems running – though demanding stricter adherence.
Critical Analysis
- Statutory Interpretation with Purpose
Word by word, the High Court stuck to what laws say on paper – consumer safety from shaky legal advice riding alongside. Backed up by penalties under the LSA, that strict reading holds ground without reaching beyond the rulebook.
Still, it overlooked the wider laws around it. For years, the courts have run on clear chains of command, where licensed attorneys manage groups of unlicensed workers. Almost nothing showed lawmakers meant to make these common arrangements into crimes.
What matters most is how duties are handled, not just who does them. Looking past rigid routines, the judges matched the law’s wording to its real-world purpose. Through this lens, oversight counts more than routine steps. The decision fits today’s legal landscape by emphasizing accountability over checklist actions. Instead of sticking only to written phrases, attention shifts to actual influence and authority.
- Justice Access and Systemic Risk
Out of nowhere, the High Court’s reading of the rules put basic fairness at risk. Should restrictions tighten on who handles court work, law offices might struggle with higher expenses, less bandwidth, fewer cases moving forward. Legal aid groups, community advice hubs, and busy practices would feel the brunt most sharply.
Putting trust in lower levels stays allowed thanks to the appeal court’s ruling. Still, companies and approved people now carry more weight – they must back up each handoff with clear oversight and written proof.
Still, the choice walks a middle path – keeping legal help within reach even as it strengthens barriers to unchecked involvement. Though fairness stays in mind, limits tighten where oversight slips. Because support must remain open, control shifts toward clearer lines. Where aid could fade, structure grows firmer instead.
- Regulatory Responsibility and Evidence Requirements
Now courts must treat oversight not as habit but as proof. What once flowed loosely through custom now needs clear backing. The shift turns quiet expectation into something judges can weigh. Formality replaces assumption. Evidence becomes essential where trust used to suffice.
Only those approved need to show they can prove:
They still held duty for it, even after time passed.
It was clear their role involved hands-on guidance, while also steering the process forward through consistent oversight
It was their call – or at least they signed off on it. The choices that mattered went through them, one way or another.
Ignoring these rules could lead to punishment from the SRA or result in legal charges under section 14 of the LSA.
This change moves things toward “evidentialities,” where following rules isn’t just watched closely – proof matters more than presence. Instead of oversight alone, having records becomes the key piece. Proof shifts from background detail to central role. What counts now is not only doing right but showing it clearly. Being able to demonstrate actions takes priority over silent adherence. Paper trails gain weight once invisible tasks come under scrutiny. When proof shapes trust, documents act louder than behavior.
- Doctrinal Clarity v. Operational Uncertainty
Though the Court of Appeal sets out a system that functions, some edges stay blurry. Take this case:
How much oversight counts as enough?
How frequently must an authorised person review delegated work?
Who handles things personally, while others just keep an eye on progress?
One step back, the judges chose not to lock things down with strict guidelines, leaving room for agencies to decide. Because choices shift slowly at times, confusion pops up before clarity arrives. Each time a line gets crossed, someone files papers again, pushing until something gives.
- Professional Ethics and Risk Allocation
A choice like these points back to a basic rule – when tasks happen under a lawyer’s authority, that lawyer stays accountable. How it unfolds doesn’t shift the weight of duty.
Focus shifts toward:
Personal accountability
Competent supervision; and
Ethical oversight.
Firm setups feel the ripple – roles need sharper lines, learning steps up, oversight tightens. Insurance shifts underfoot, blame boundaries blur when one person’s misstep pulls others into the fall.
Practical Implications
Law Firms Act Now
Facing this move head-on is what companies need to do now. How they adjust will show in their next steps. Staying ahead means acting before being forced. Their approach should shift as soon as possible. Waiting only limits future options
Checking what jobs count as protected legal work.
Identifying who performs those tasks.
Putting into place ways to record oversight along with signoffs.
Some workers learn where their power stops. Others find out what they cannot decide alone. Rules show them the edges. Supervisors explain when to pass things up. Mistakes happen if boundaries get ignored. Knowing helps avoid overreach. Limits keep decisions in the right hands
Ensuring compliance with SRA guidance.
Long-Term Governance Changes
In the longer term, firms should:
Redesign roles to clarify responsibilities.
Introduce digital audit trails for supervision.
Update internal policies and procedures; and
Start by looking at how insurance rules connect with customer interactions. Client needs often shape what coverage looks like behind the scenes. Terms shift when both sides adjust expectations together.
Conclusion
One ruling stood out – Mazur against Charles Russell Speechlys LLP reshaped how rules meet real-world law practice. Though the High Court drew lines sharply, its approach threatened to gum up the works of daily legal tasks. Then came the appeal judges, who stepped in not to block oversight but to shape it, allowing guided handovers if clear responsibility stays fixed. What emerged was less rigid, yet still firm – a middle path where supervision holds weight without freezing progress.
What sticks isn’t some theoretical update to what counts as “conduct of litigation.” Instead, it’s how actual legal tasks now need tighter organisation, oversight, because someone must show they were really watching. Records matter more – written at the time, precise – not after the fact. The bar is higher, quietly, without announcement.
What matters most is fairness stays within reach when lawyers hand off tasks – yet they still answer for every choice made. Responsibility cannot be passed along like a baton; it sticks, even when work shifts hands.
