Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – how to avoid problems

What steps should law firms take to ensure they do not fall foul of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)?

Obviously, the starting point is that all litigated cases must be run by an authorised fee earner. Unauthorised fee earners can assist but not conduct the litigation themselves, even under supervision.

It is infinitely preferrable to avoid a challenge arising (whether from the courts, opponents, regulators or disgruntled clients) rather than hoping you can successfully ride out a challenge.

Potential red lights will include:

• Unauthorised fee earners have signed court documents.
• Unauthorised fee earners have filed/served documents.
• All work claimed within a Statement of Costs/Bill of Costs is by unauthorised fee earners.
• Only minimal supervisory work by an authorised fee earner is claimed in a Statement of Costs/Bill of Costs with all other work having been undertaken by unauthorised fee earners.
• An unauthorised fee earner is named as the person with conduct of the case in the client care letter.
• Key correspondence with the other side is by an unauthorised fee earner.

It may be that some of these steps can properly be undertaken by unauthorised fee earners (in their role as assisting an authorised fee earner conduct the litigation) but these are all things that will arouse suspicion as to who is really conducting the litigation.

What can be done to remedy problems on existing cases? There is almost certainly nothing that can be done on cases that have already settled beyond ensuring that any formal steps being taken in relation to costs disputes are taken by an authorised fee earner. In relation to ongoing matters:

• Update client care letters so that any named fee earner with conduct is an authorised fee earner.
• Ensure that any future decisions in relation to litigation (particularly key decisions about case strategy, settlement, and procedural steps) are made by authorised fee earners and that this is properly evidenced by file notes.
• Ensure only authorised fee earners sign court documents.
• Ensure only authorised fee earners file/serve documents.
• Ensure key correspondence with the other side is by an authorised fee earner.

What about where key documents (e.g. the Statement of Truth on a Claim Form) has been signed by an unauthorised fee earner? Should permission be sought to amend the document? Any such application will immediately alert the other side to the problem (if they were not already aware of it). Better to let sleeping dogs lie and hope for the best? No easy answer I am afraid.