The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2026] EWCA Civ 369 Rev 1 addressed, inter alia, what it meant to “carry on the conduct of litigation” under the Legal Services Act 2007 (“LSA 2007”), and the extent to which litigation tasks could lawfully be delegated to unauthorised individuals working under supervision within legal practice.
Background
The underlying proceedings concerned a fee recovery claim brought on behalf of Charles Russell Speechlys LLP against former clients, Julia Mazur and Jerome Stuart, for unpaid legal fees. Ms Mazur objected to the fact that the individual running the claim was not an authorised person for the purposes of the LSA 2007. The issue developed into a wider dispute concerning whether unauthorised persons employed within law firms could lawfully undertake tasks constituting the “conduct of litigation”.
At first instance, the High Court adopted a restrictive interpretation of the statutory scheme, holding that where an unauthorised individual carried out acts falling within the statutory definition of the conduct of litigation, that person was themselves “carrying on the conduct of litigation”, notwithstanding supervision by an authorised solicitor. The decision caused significant concern across the legal profession, given the longstanding practice of litigation teams comprising solicitors, trainees, paralegals and other support staff operating under supervision.
The appeal was pursued by CILEX, with interventions from the SRA, the Law Society, the Legal Services Board, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Law Centres Network.
Issues in the Appeal
This summary focuses on the first issue identified at paragraph 13.1 of the judgment: “Was the judge right to hold that unauthorised persons were ‘carrying on the conduct of litigation’ if they did acts that constituted the conduct of litigation under the supervision of an authorised individual?”
The first issue, therefore, concerned the proper interpretation of the statutory phrase “carry on the conduct of litigation” within the framework of the LSA 2007 and whether delegation under supervision remained lawful.
Proper Meaning of “Carrying on the Conduct of Litigation”
The Court of Appeal rejected the narrow interpretation adopted by the High Court and restored the orthodox understanding of litigation practice.
The Court held that the phrase “conduct of litigation” referred to the relevant litigation tasks identified in Schedule 2 to the LSA 2007, such as issuing proceedings, acknowledging service, filing documents at court and other formal procedural steps. However, the words “carry on” imported a broader concept of responsibility, direction and control over those activities. Accordingly, the person “carrying on the conduct of litigation” is the authorised individual who remains responsible for the litigation and exercises supervision and control over the delegated work.
The Court confirmed that an unauthorised person may lawfully perform litigation tasks on behalf of, and under the supervision of, an authorised individual, provided that the authorised person:
- properly manages, supervises and controls the work;
- retains responsibility for the conduct of the litigation; and
- ensures compliance with professional obligations and regulatory standards.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court emphasised that the statutory regime was not intended to criminalise ordinary and longstanding litigation practices within regulated legal services businesses. The Court noted that modern litigation is routinely conducted by teams involving varying levels of qualification and experience, operating under appropriate supervision structures.
Importantly, the Court distinguished situations involving supervised delegation within regulated legal practice from cases where an unauthorised individual independently purports to act for a litigant in person as though they were conducting litigation on the client’s behalf. In those circumstances, there is no authorised individual exercising supervision or retaining responsibility. Such conduct may amount to the unauthorised carrying on of a reserved legal activity contrary to section 14 of the LSA 2007 and therefore constitute a criminal offence. In this way, the Court made clear that its decision did not legitimise independent litigation services provided by unauthorised persons outside an authorised framework.
The Court also observed that the adequacy of supervision will depend on the circumstances, including the complexity of the matter, the experience of the unauthorised individual and the nature of the work being delegated. Regulatory obligations imposed by the SRA and other approved regulators remain central to ensuring appropriate oversight and protection of the public interest.
The Court’s Conclusion on the First Issue
At paragraphs 19–27 and paragraph 187 of the judgment, the Court of Appeal conclusively determined that the judge at first instance had been wrong to hold that an unauthorised individual “carries on the conduct of litigation” merely because they perform tasks falling within the statutory definition under supervision. The Court held that:
- an authorised individual may lawfully delegate litigation tasks to an unauthorised person;
- where the authorised individual retains responsibility and exercises proper supervision, management and control, it is the authorised individual who is “carrying on the conduct of litigation”;
- the unauthorised individual is not themselves carrying on a reserved legal activity in those circumstances; and
- accordingly, no offence under section 14 of the LSA 2007 is committed by the supervised unauthorised individual.
The Court therefore allowed the appeal and overturned the High Court’s restrictive interpretation.
Significance of the Judgment
For Law Firms: the judgment provides significant reassurance to law firms and regulated legal businesses. It confirms that unauthorised individuals, including paralegals, trainees, litigation executives and support staff, may lawfully undertake litigation tasks under the supervision of an authorised individual. The decision preserves the practical and longstanding delegation model upon which modern litigation practice depends, while reinforcing the importance of effective supervision, management and regulatory accountability.
For Unauthorised Individuals: the judgment clarifies that unauthorised individuals cannot independently carry on the conduct of litigation outside an authorised and supervised framework. Where an unauthorised person purports to conduct litigation for a client without appropriate supervision by an authorised individual, they risk committing a criminal offence under the LSA 2007.
How To Get In Contact
To find out more or if you require assistance with these matters, speak with our Dispute Resolution Team on +44 (0)204 600 9907 or email info@culbertellis.com.
Accurate at the time of writing. This information is provided for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice.
