Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – what work can a Grade D undertake?

What tasks can Grade D fee earners undertake in light of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)?

Is this the death of the Grade D fee earner?

In fact, Mazur is of far wider application than just to Grade D fee earners. Grade C fee earners are described in the Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs and the Guideline Hourly Rates as “other solicitors or legal executives and fee earners of equivalent experience”. It is therefore acknowledged that non-authorised fee earners may, subject to experience, be properly treated as Grade C. Further, there will be many other unauthorised, but experienced, fee earners who may be charged out at rates equivalent to Grade B or higher and such rates may be claimed (if not necessarily recovered) from the paying party. In Mazur itself, the fee earner in question went by the title of “Head of Commercial Litigation” (and is described on the firm’s website as having over 25 years’ experience), quite possibly justifying rates equivalent to Grade B.

Mazur is clear than an unauthorised individual cannot conduct litigation:

“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.”

A previous post looked at the issue of pre-litigation work and the fact that there appears to be no problem with unauthorised persons undertaking such work.

So far as post-litigation work is concerned, I would suggest (although the contrary may be arguable) that the key issue is not what work the unauthorised fee earner is undertaking but whether an authorised fee earner is controlling/directing the litigation.

If that analysis is correct, there is nothing to prevent an unauthorised fee earner undertaking tasks such as:

• Drafting Claim Forms
• Drafting Particulars of Claim
• Drafting instructions to medical experts
• Drafting instructions to Counsel
• Drafting witness statements
• Drafting schedules of loss
• Preparing advices on quantum

The crucial question is why are they doing this? If the answer is that they have decided to undertake these tasks because it is “their case” and they are the ones making the decisions as to what steps to take, this is likely to amount to conducting the litigation and fall foul of the Legal Services Act 2007.

On the other hand, if they are completing these tasks at the specific request of an authorised fee earner who is the decision maker, this should be permissible. This would then fall within “supporting an authorised solicitor in conducting litigation”, which Mazur expressly identified as being permitted.

More difficult issues arise as to what level of supervision is required when such work has been delegated. Mazur rejected “supervision” as being of assistance as to what an unauthorised individual could or could not do. It may therefore be that once a task has been properly delegated by an authorised individual, there is then no formal requirement for such work to be supervised in the traditional sense. The unauthorised fee earner is “supporting” the authorised fee earner by undertaking the work. On the other hand, it is very easy to see that a court may be very suspicious as to who is really conducting the litigation if the work has not been properly checked by the fee earner who supposedly has conduct of the litigation.