Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – will you go to prison?

How likely are you to be sent to prison in light of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)?

Section 14 of the Legal Servies Act 2007 states:

“Offence to carry on a reserved legal activity if not entitled

(1) 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.”

The offence can be committed by both the unauthorised fee earner and their manager even if their manager is authorised to undertake the reserved legal activity in question.

Conviction can lead to a prison sentence of up to two years and/or a fine. The LSA also states that a person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is also guilty of contempt of court and may be punished accordingly.

Fortunately, there is a statutory defence s14(2):

“In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1), it is a defence for the accused to show that the accused did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the offence was being committed.”

This creates the unfortunate position whereby experienced lawyers may have to plead ignorance of the law in their defence. The statutory defence in s14(2) is an exception to the general principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

How likely is it that a court would believe lawyers did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that unauthorised fee earners could not conduct litigation, even under the supervision of an authorised fee earner?

Some comfort will be taken from the fact in the case of Mazur itself the SRA had written to the solicitors in question advising that the LSA permitted unauthorised individuals to conduct litigation where they were employed by a regulated firm.

CILEX has recently had to admit it gave out incorrect information on its website:

“Why did a CILEX webpage say members could conduct litigation prior to 2023?

As has been covered in the press, a page on the CILEX website said members employed in solicitor firms could conduct litigation and we are investigating how this happened.”

If regulatory bodies have wrongly interpreted the LSA, it would perhaps not be a very high hurdle to overcome to persuade a court that a lawyer that does not specialise in regulatory matters could not be reasonably expected to know what regulatory specialists failed to appreciate.

In any event, it seems very possible that the courts would adopt a similar approach to the problem of lawyers referring to fictitious case law that had been produced by AI hallucinations. Although potentially amounting to contempt of court, such proceedings have not yet been brought against those lawyers by the courts. Rather, dire warnings have been issued to the profession that future repetitions may lead to severe sanctions. It may be that past Mazur failings will be overlooked with sanction reserved for those ignore the lessons of Mazur. However, if that is correct, a lenient approach may not last very long post-Mazur.