Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys: what it means for litigators

Mazur and the conduct of litigation

We’ve revised our practice note to help solicitors, law firms and legal businesses understand:

• who is authorised to carry on the conduct of litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007) and
• what activities an unauthorised team members can carry out on their own or under supervision

Read our practice note on Mazur and the conduct of litigation.

Law Society of England and Wales vice president, Brett Dixon, said: “This practice note sets out our understanding of how the judgment should be interpreted, pending further guidance from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which we are working with them to develop.

“The judgment establishes a less restrictive framework in relation to the conduct of litigation than the High Court judgment, but it does not remove all limitations on what an unauthorised person employed by a regulated entity may do.

“The Court of Appeal judgment did not alter the position that only authorised persons are entitled to carry on the conduct of litigation.

“However, it confirmed that an authorised person can delegate tasks within the litigation to an unauthorised person, as long as the authorised person maintained responsibility for those tasks.”

Responsibility in this context means both:

• formal responsibility for the task itself, and
• responsibility to adhere to the professional principles

Brett Dixon said: “We advise our members to make sure they are familiar with the SRA’s guidance on supervision, conducting litigation and its enforcement strategy.”

The Court of Appeal judgment

The Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP & Others [2026] EWCA Civ 369 on 31 March 2026.

The Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the words to “carry on the conduct of litigation”, following the High Court’s ruling in 2025, which held that only authorised individuals can “conduct” litigation.

The Court of Appeal judgment held that:

• an unauthorised person may lawfully perform any tasks which are within the scope of the conduct of litigation for and on behalf of an authorised person (such as a solicitor or appropriately authorised CILEX member), provided the authorised person retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person
• the authorised person is the person carrying on the conduct of litigation. The unauthorised person is not carrying on the conduct of litigation and therefore does not commit an offence
• the delegation of tasks by the authorised person to the unauthorised person requires proper direction, management supervision and control. The details of which are a matter for the regulators)
• the authorised person must put in place appropriate arrangements for direction, management supervision and control. The degree of appropriate control and supervision will always depend on the circumstances

Law Society vice president, Brett Dixon, said: “All the parties to the proceedings before the Court of Appeal were there to seek clarity for practitioners and consumers of legal services with disputes.”

“While the court did not accept all of the Law Society’s points, its judgment provides an outline framework for those involved in litigation to use in assessing whether supervision is adequate and lawful.

“The judgment confirms the continuing importance of supervision being in place, which will require further regulatory guidance.

The High Court decision

In Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341, 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 Administrative Court restated the position in the LSA 2007 and the SRA’s 2022 guidance on effective supervision that even within a regulated entity, only an “authorised person” may “conduct” litigation.

Next steps

We are:

• holding a free online classroom on 14 April to explain what this judgment means for members and give you an opportunity to raise any questions
• continuing to work with the SRA to develop further guidance for the profession
• liaising with CILEX to ensure a consistent approach across the professions