12 November 2025
Mazur & the use of unqualified staff
Introduction
Gallagher has received queries from firms concerning the impact of the decision in Mazur & another v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 on the use of unqualified staff in respect of the provision of legal services. Therefore, in collaboration with the law firm, Caytons – A Gallagher Bassett Company, we have prepared this note.
The Legal Service Act 2007 (“the Act”) provides that “reserved legal activity” may be carried out by “authorised persons” (i.e. people authorised to practice by a relevant approved regulator such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)) or “exempt persons” (i.e. unauthorised persons such as paralegals and legal assistants who can carry out reserved legal activity in specific circumstances).
In Mazur, the High Court held that an unauthorised person cannot “conduct” litigation as that is a “reserved legal activity”. The litigation must be “conducted” by an authorised person, which would include a solicitor with a practising certificate. The judgment made clear that it is not sufficient for an unauthorised person to “conduct” litigation even under the “supervision” of an authorised person.
The decision has been of concern for firms that utilise unqualified staff in dealing with litigation. In addition, questions have been raised on the impact of the decision on the use of unqualified staff in relation to conveyancing and probate. This note seeks to explore the decision itself concerning the conduct of litigation and the implications on other legal services by reference to the provisions of the Act.
The background facts & decisions
The Respondent Firm provided legal services for the Appellants, incurring in the order of £55k in fees. However, the Appellants did not pay the fees. Consequently, the Respondent Firm instructed another law firm (“the Recovery Firm”) to commence proceedings against the Appellants to recover the outstanding fees. The Claim Form and Particulars of Claim were signed by the Recovery Firm’s “Head of Commercial Litigation”, Mr Middleton. He also undertook various other tasks in respect of the litigation. Mr Middleton did not hold a current practising certificate and was not otherwise authorised under the Act.
The Appellants took issue with the fact that Mr Middleton did not have a practising certificate and was “conducting litigation” against them as that was a “reserved legal activity” to be carried out by an authorised person (such as a solicitor with a practising certificate) under the Act. As such, they submitted an application requesting directions and an order to replace Mr Middleton with a solicitor. The proceedings were stayed by the judge on his own volition due to concerns about “reserved legal activities” being carried out by an unauthorised person. Following that, the Respondent Firm applied to lift the stay.
The judge lifted the stay because: (a) Mr Ashall, a qualified solicitor, had submitted a witness stating that he was “supervising” Mr Middleton and the SRA had separately confirmed in correspondence that was sufficient for Mr Middleton to conduct litigation due to him being employed by the Respondent Firm as that was authorised and regulated by the SRA; and (b) by then Mr Middleton had been replaced by another qualified solicitor, Ms Adkin. As a result, he ordered the Appellants to pay the Respondent Firm’s costs of just over £10k. The Appellants appealed.
The court found that under the Act, Mr Middleton was not entitled to “conduct litigation”. It explained that, to be able to do that, Mr Middleton needed to be either: (a) an authorised person such as a solicitor with a practising certificate, which he was not; or (b) an exempt person. The court found that Mr Middleton was not an exempt person just because he was employed by an authorised firm. Furthermore, and importantly, he was not an exempt person because he was being supervised by Mr Ashall who was a qualified solicitor. The court highlighted that supervision was not sufficient to make Mr Middleton an exempt person for the purpose of “conducting” litigation unlike in respect of other “reserved legal activity” (which is considered below). However, in relation to the “conduct of litigation” an unauthorised employee can “assist” or “support” the authorised person.
Whether an unauthorised person is “conducting” litigation (not permissible) or providing “assistance” or “support” to the authorised person (permissible) is always going to be a question of fact and degree. Firms should exercise caution, as the court emphasised that under the Act, an employer can be guilty of a criminal offence if they allow an unauthorised individual (such as Mr Middleton) to perform a reserved legal activity in violation of the Act.
The decision has resulted in a significant amount of regulatory activity. The Law Society has published guidance to ensure that only those authorised to do so conduct of litigation: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys: what it means for litigators | The Law Society. The SRA also issued a statement which firms should consider: SRA | SRA Statement following the case of Julia Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP | Solicitors Regulation Authority. Most recently, the Law Gazette reported that the Legal Services Board has approved a fast-track application from The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives(CILEX) Regulation to allow legal executives to obtain standalone litigation practice rights. This decision takes effect immediately.
Impact on other areas
It is understandable that firms may be concerned with the impact this decision may have on the use of unqualified staff in practice areas beyond litigation, as to which see below.
Conveyancing
In respect of conveyancing, a “reserved legal activity” includes carrying out “reserved instrument activities” which means “preparing any instrument of transfer or charge for the purpose of the Land Registration Act 2002”, “making an application or lodging a document for registration under that Act” and “preparing any other instrument relating to real estate”[1]. These instruments will include contracts for sale and transfer deeds. In Mazur, it was held that it was not permissible for the unauthorised person to conduct litigation (being a reserved legal activity) even under the supervision of the authorised person, i.e. the solicitor with the practising certificate. However, section 3(3) of Schedule 3 of the Act provides that an unauthorised person can carry out “reserved instrument activities” at the “direction and under the supervision” of an authorised person such as a solicitor with a practising certificate or a licensed conveyancer, etc. Firms will appreciate that it is different to the position in respect of conducting litigation as explained above.
Probate services
Under the Act, “Probate services” includes preparing “probate papers”, i.e. a “grant of probate” or “a grant of letters of administration” in relation to any proceedings[1]. However, under section 4(2) of Schedule 3 of the Act provides that an unauthorised person can carry out “probate activities” at the “direction and under the supervision” of an authorised person, such as a solicitor with a practising certificate, etc. Again, Firms will appreciate that it is different to the position in respect of conducting litigation as explained above.
Overall
The Act provides that it is sufficient for unauthorised persons such as paralegals or legal assistants to carry out the reserved legal activities of “reserved instrument activities” and “probate services” under the supervision of an authorised person such as a solicitor, and that is to be contrasted with the position in relation to the conduct of litigation where supervision is not sufficient.
Let's talk
The Walbrook Building he Walbrook Building 25 Walbrook London, EC4N 8AW
Arthur J. Gallagher (UK) Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered Office: The Walbrook Building, 25 Walbrook, London EC4N 8AW. Registered in England and Wales. Company Number: 119013.
[1] See paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
[2] See paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
Disclaimer
This note should not be treated as specific advice in relation to a particular matter, as other considerations may apply. Therefore, no liability is accepted for reliance on this note. If specific advice is required, please contact one of the Partners at Caytons or Piers Winton or Janine Parker at Gallagher, who will be happy to help.