Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys: what it means for litigators

The case

Defendants to a debt claim acting in person, sought a direction that the individual acting for the claimants be replaced by a qualified solicitor.

A stay was imposed and later lifted with a costs order made against the defendants.

The defendants appealed against that costs order on the basis that the judge making it had been wrong in deciding that the individual conducting the litigation for the claimants had been entitled to do so.

The decision

In its decision, the Administrative Court restated the position in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the SRA’s 2022 guidance on effective supervision that even within a regulated entity, only an “authorised person” may “conduct” litigation.

Unqualified staff are permitted to support an authorised person in the conduct of litigation but not conduct it themselves.

Whilst affirming those principles, the court did not decide that the conduct of the specific litigation giving rise to the appeal had been unlawful.

Nor did it identify any particular working practices which would generally be considered lawful or unlawful.

It was recognised that any such decision would depend on fact and degree in individual cases.

What this means for solicitors

This judgment relates only to litigation, not to other reserved activities.

However, solicitors undertaking other reserved activities may still wish to review the SRA guidance on supervision to make sure their processes are compliant.

Anyone undertaking litigation who is concerned that they have unqualified staff “conducting” (as opposed to “supporting”) litigation will wish to review their processes to make sure they are not acting in breach of the Legal Services Act.

There are no statutory restrictions on unqualified staff undertaking work pre-litigation or on someone who is an exempt person in relation to the conduct of litigation.

While previous cases have looked at the question of where the boundary is between “conducting” and “supporting” litigation (for example, Baxter v Doble [2023] EWHC 486), this remains a grey area.

We consider there is now a need for further guidance and we are liaising with the SRA for that purpose.

In the meantime, you may wish to consider this judgment and possibly take independent legal advice if you have doubts as to whether your practices fall on the right side of the line.

Next steps

We will provide a further update on what further guidance the SRA is planning to provide as soon as possible.