Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP – what about pre-issue work?

Lawyers are desperately trying to understand the full impact of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB).

The decision interprets the Legal Services Act 2007 as meaning that an unauthorised individual can support an authorised solicitor in conducting litigation but an unauthorised individual cannot themselves conduct litigation even under the supervision of an authorised solicitor.

This, naturally, begs the question as to what amounts to the “conduct of litigation” and to what extent is certain work now “off-limits” to unauthorised individuals.

The key authority on this issue, not least because it provides a comprehensive review of earlier authorities, is Baxter v Doble & Anor [2023] EWHC 486 (KB) (08 March 2023). The facts are not particularly relevant for current purposes as it concerned a firm that was clearly not authorised to conduct litigation. The decision examines what actions might amount to the conduct of litigation. Crucially, paragraph 206 concludes:

“in light of the statutory language and the ruling in Ndole, no step that is taken prior to the issue or commencement of proceedings can amount to the conduct of litigation.”

This clearly significantly narrows the potential significance of Mazur. There appears to be nothing to prevent unauthorised individuals from having their own case load so long as they cease to have overall conduct of the claim if proceedings become necessary. Volume personal injury firms should be able to allow unauthorised individuals to have their own case loads dealing with portal claims up to (but not including) the issuing of Part 8 proceedings.