What the High Court has decided in
Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), in plain English:
Only people who are authorised (for example, a solicitor with a current practising certificate) or who fall within a statutory exemption are allowed to conduct litigation. Conducting litigation means issuing and running court proceedings and the key ancillary steps. Being unqualified but supervised by a solicitor does not make it lawful to run a case. Supervision does not confer the right to conduct litigation.
If an unauthorised person conducts litigation, that is a criminal offence for the individual. It can also be a criminal offence for the law firm if the offence is committed by its employee while carrying on the firm’s litigation work. Beyond the criminal aspect, the court can refuse the firm its costs and, in some cases, strike out the claim.
The judgment does not change the law. It confirms what the Legal Services Act 2007 has always required since it came into force. Before that Act, unqualified staff in a firm could, under supervision, conduct litigation. Since the Act, they cannot. Cases concluded before the Act are unaffected.
In this case, the defendants (Mazur and Stuart) challenged steps taken by a firm’s “Head of Commercial Litigation” who did not hold a practising certificate. A deputy district judge stayed the claim and required the firm either to fix the problem or face strike out. A circuit judge later lifted the stay once a qualified solicitor had taken over and ordered the defendants to pay £10,653 in costs. On appeal, the High Court held that the unqualified person had not been entitled to conduct litigation even under supervision. The court also held that the circuit judge’s reliance on an SRA letter implying that supervised conduct was permitted was wrong in law. The costs order was varied to no order for costs. The High Court added that, even if costs had been appropriate, this was an Intermediate Track fixed costs situation where only £333 plus the court fee of £303 could have been awarded.
The court invited and heard submissions from the Law Society and the SRA. Both confirmed the correct position: non-authorised staff may support an authorised solicitor with litigation, sometimes to a significant degree, but they cannot themselves be the person conducting litigation, even if a solicitor oversees them. Who is “conducting” the litigation turns on substance: who has assumed responsibility and exercises professional judgment on litigation decisions.
Practical effects. Law firms must ensure that the individual who signs core court documents and makes litigation decisions is personally authorised (or exempt). Non-qualified staff can assist but cannot “run” a case. If an unauthorised person has conducted litigation, the firm risks losing its costs, facing strike-out issues, and exposure to criminal liability. Because this judgment states what the law has always been since 2007, some past and ongoing cases may be open to challenge where unauthorised staff effectively ran the litigation.
