The recent High Court judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has prompted important conversations across the legal profession about who is authorised to conduct litigation and where the boundaries of that authority lie. Although the decision does not change the statutory requirements themselves, it has highlighted practical uncertainties that many solicitors and firms have been grappling with. [lawsociety.org.uk]
Why the Case Matters
The Law Society acknowledges that the ruling has created a degree of uncertainty, particularly regarding the role of non‑authorised individuals within litigation teams. In response, it has released guidance designed to help firms and practitioners understand how the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007) applies to day‑to‑day litigation work and what constitutes the “conduct of litigation” as a reserved legal activity. [lawsociety.org.uk]
The case specifically examined whether a non‑authorised person can conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised litigator. While the judgment doesn’t alter existing law, it underscores areas where many practitioners have sought clarity—especially around the delineation between conducting litigation and merely supporting it.
Who Can Conduct Litigation?
Under the LSA 2007, only authorised individuals—such as solicitors with practising certificates, costs lawyers, chartered legal executives, barristers, and certain patent and trademark attorneys—may carry on the conduct of litigation. Each must hold the appropriate practising rights.
The Law Society’s guidance reiterates that acting without proper authorisation constitutes a breach of regulatory obligations and may lead to disciplinary action. Firms are advised to review their internal processes to ensure compliance, particularly in light of the court’s renewed focus on what constitutes litigation conduct.
What Work Can Non‑Authorised Staff Do?
Although the conduct of litigation is closely defined and reserved, non‑authorised staff continue to play a valuable role within litigation teams. The guidance offers practical advice on what activities can appropriately be carried out by those who are not authorised, helping teams understand how to support authorised individuals without crossing regulatory boundaries.
Implications for Firms
The judgment has prompted some firms to consider making applications based on allegations that opposing parties have acted in breach of the LSA 2007. The Law Society cautions practitioners to stay alert to their regulatory obligations and encourages firms to examine their supervision structures and workflow processes.
To assist the profession further, the Law Society has provided a new practice note alongside an online classroom session where practitioners’ questions have been addressed. These resources aim to bring clarity to an area where many grey zones remain, and where additional regulatory guidance may still be needed.
Looking Ahead
While the Mazur decision does not rewrite the rules on authorised conduct of litigation, it has undoubtedly sharpened the profession’s focus on compliance and supervision. As firms adjust their practices, the Law Society’s continued effort to provide practical, accessible guidance will be central in helping practitioners navigate these evolving expectations.