Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – have you committed a criminal offence?

Are you, and/or your firm, guilty of multiple criminal offences? Quite possibly.

The decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has been described as an “earthquake” decision and may have a profound effect on the way that many firms operate in the future.

1. Many firms/fee earners may have already, inadvertently, committed criminal offences on multiple occasions.
2. There are likely to be numerous challenges raised to between-the-parties costs recovery.
3. Clients may successfully challenge significant work that has already been undertaken/billed.
4. At best, many firms may have to completely restructure the way they operate.
5. At worst, certain types of work may become entirely unprofitable.

The starting point is to understand that certain tasks that lawyers undertake are treated as being “reserved legal activities” under the Legal Services Ac 2007 (“the LSA). The LSA restricts who may undertake such work. Section 12 lists various types of work that falls into this category including “the conduct of litigation”. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the LSA then defines what this means:

“(1) The “conduct of litigation” means—

(a) the issuing of proceedings before any court in England and Wales,

(b) the commencement, prosecution and defence of such proceedings, and

(c) the performance of any ancillary functions in relation to such proceedings (such as entering appearances to actions).”

The LSA permits an “authorised person” to undertake “reserved legal activities” (and there are also certain limited circumstances where a person may be exempt from the restrictions).

Importantly, section 14(1) makes it a criminal offence to undertake a “reserved legal activity” when not permitted to do so:

“It is an offence for a person to carry on an activity (“the relevant activity”) which is a reserved legal activity unless that person is entitled to carry on the relevant activity.”

Equally, undertaking such an activity would amount to contempt of court (section 14(4)). Section 15 makes it clear that the employer can also be committing a criminal offence by virtue of their employees’ actions.

The LSA also deals with the various ways that individuals may be authorised to undertake certain types of “reserved legal activities”. Qualified solicitors with a current practising certificate are authorised by the SRA to undertake “the conduct of litigation”. In a similar fashion, qualified Costs Lawyers with a current practising certificate are authorised by the CLSB to undertake “the conduct of litigation” so far as it only relates to costs.

Firms of solicitors will often consist of a number of different types of fee earner:

• Those who are authorised individuals – most commonly, qualified solicitors.
• Those who are unauthorised individuals – e.g previously admitted solicitors who no longer hold a practising certificate, trainee solicitors, paralegals/litigation executives (or whatever other term they go by), etc.

The issue that arose in Mazur was that proceedings had been issued in relation to a debt recovery matter by a firm of solicitors with the Particulars of Claim signed by a fee earner described as the “Head of Commercial Litigation”. This individual did not hold a current practising certificate. It was clear that this individual had conduct of the claim. A witness statement was produced, that was not challenged, stating that the work performed by this individual had been done under the supervision of a practising solicitor.

The issue for the court to decide was whether an unauthorised individual was entitled to conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised individual. The short answer to that question was “no”. The key passage is at paragraph 49 of the judgment:

“Mere employment by a person who is authorised to conduct litigation is not sufficient for the employee to conduct litigation themselves, even under supervision. The person conducting litigation, even under supervision, must be authorised to do so, or fall within one of the exempt categories. In my judgment, this is the proper construction of the LSA.”

What does this mean in practice? Some guidance is given later in the judgment:

“64. Both the Law Society and the SRA in their submissions to the Court distinguish between (a) supporting an authorised solicitor in conducting litigation and (b) conducting litigation under the supervision of an authorised solicitor. They contend that activities falling within (a) are permitted, but those falling within (b) are prohibited by the statutory regime. I agree with this analysis …

65. This analysis is also supported by the text of the LSA itself. The LSA expressly contemplates that there will be persons falling within category (a); that is, persons who “assist” in the conduct of litigation: see paragraph 1(7)(a) of Schedule 3 to the LSA (a provision is concerned with the exemption for the purpose of exercising a right of audience before a court). There is nothing in the LSA, however, which contemplates category (b): that is, a person who conducts litigation under the supervision of an authorised solicitor. The absence of such a category is highlighted by the fact that there is express reference in the LSA to an individual who carries on a “Reserved instrument activity” at the direction and “under the supervision of another individual”: see paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the LSA.”

Mazur is a binding High Court decision. Unless and until it is overturned, unauthorised fee earners are not permitted to “conduct litigation”. They can only assist authorised fee earners.

This decision will be explored in more detail in future posts.