Mazur and the conduct of litigation

This practice note provides advice on how solicitors, law firms and legal businesses can make sure that only those authorised to do so carry on the conduct of litigation, following the Court of Appeal judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys. It also helps you to understand what activities non-authorised team members can carry out in their own right and/or under supervision.

13 Apr 2026

18 minutes read

For the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007), the conduct of litigation is a ‘reserved legal activity’.

This means a person must be authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) (or other approved legal regulator) to carry on the conduct of litigation.

The definition of the ‘conduct of litigation’ is narrow and limited to formal steps in proceedings. For example, the issuing, filing and serving of applications and statements of case.

Much of the work involved in handling proceedings will not fall within the definition of the conduct of litigation, and can be carried out by non-authorised staff.

An individual who is not an authorised person may lawfully perform any tasks which are within the scope of the conduct of litigation, for and on behalf of an authorised individual, provided the authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the non-authorised person.

The Court of Appeal stated that the delegation of tasks by the authorised individual to the unauthorised person “requires proper direction, management supervision and control, the details of which are a matter for the regulators”.

Solicitors, firms and legal businesses should make sure their processes and records demonstrate that appropriately authorised persons are exercising their professional responsibility for the key formal steps and strategic decisions in connection with proceedings initiated before the courts.

Further, firms and legal businesses must make sure arrangements for delegation and supervision of tasks are appropriate in the circumstances, in line with guidance from their regulator.

This practice note is the Law Society’s view of good practice in this area and is not legal advice. For more information, see the legal status.

Introduction

Who should read this practice note?

Sign up to continue reading

My LS gives you exclusive access to the latest news, events, books and resources to help you excel within your practice.

Practice notes represent the Law Society’s view of good practice in a particular area. They are not intended to be the only standard of good practice that solicitors can follow. You are not required to follow them but doing so will make it easier to account to oversight bodies for your actions.

Practice notes are not legal advice, and do not necessarily provide a defence to complaints of misconduct or poor service. While we have taken care to ensure that they are accurate, up to date and useful, we will not accept any legal liability in relation to them.

For queries or comments on this practice note, contact our Practice Advice Service.

SRA Principles

There are seven mandatory principles in the SRA Standards and Regulations which apply to all aspects of practice.

The principles apply to all authorised individuals (solicitors, registered European lawyers and registered foreign lawyers), authorised firms and their managers and employees, and to the delivery of regulated services within licensed bodies.

Must – a requirement in legislation or a requirement of a principle, rule, regulation or other mandatory provision in the SRA Standards and Regulations. You must comply, unless there are specific exemptions or defences provided for in relevant legislation or regulations.

Should – outside of a regulatory context, good practice, in our view, for most situations. In the case of the SRA Standards and Regulations, a non-mandatory provision, such as may be set out in notes or guidance.

These may not be the only means of complying with legislative or regulatory requirements and there may be situations where the suggested route is not the best route to meet the needs of a particular client. However, if you do not follow the suggested route, you should be able to justify to oversight bodies why your alternative approach is appropriate, either for your practice, or in the particular retainer.

May – an option for meeting your obligations or running your practice. Other options may be available and which option you choose is determined by the nature of the individual practice, client or retainer. You may be required to justify why this was an appropriate option to oversight bodies.