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 High Court judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys. It also helps you to understand what activities non-authorised team members can carry out to provide support to authorised individuals, in their own right and/or under supervision.

16 Oct 2025

14 minutes read

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

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

A person who is not authorised cannot carry on the conduct of litigation; notwithstanding that they are an employee or manager of an authorised firm and/or working under the supervision of an authorised person.

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 litigation can nonetheless be carried out by non-authorised staff – either as it does not amount to the reserved activity of the conduct of litigation or as it falls within their role assisting an authorised person.

This will include activities that take place prior to proceedings being initiated. It will also generally include matters such as:

the giving of general legal advice
drafting pleadings, particulars of claim, applications and correspondence
proofing witnesses
drafting statements, and
signing a statement of truth

When considering who is responsible for the conduct of litigation this will be a question of fact and degree in each case.

A finding that a person has carried out the conduct of litigation can therefore arise from a single action, such as issuing a claim form, or a series of actions taken together and in light of their actual role.

Solicitors and firms will therefore wish to 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.

‘Tick-box’ oversight from an authorised person will not be sufficient.

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.