There have been a number of commentators suggesting that Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) was wrongly decided. It is fair to say that much of this has been wishful thinking and/or based on misconceived arguments. However, there have also been a number of other arguments advanced that are much more persuasive and may have legs. (This blog may examine some of the arguments currently circulating in the future.)
What if Mazur has been wrongly decided and is overturned?
The Law Society and SRA intervened in Mazur. Their submissions were that unauthorised fee earners could not conduct litigation even under the supervision of an authorised fee earner (even though the SRA had written to the solicitors in Mazur suggesting the opposite). The Court accepted those submissions.
CILEX has made clear that it does not believe Mazur changes anything (despite previously writing on their website that unauthorised fee earners could conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised fee earner).
The Legal Ombudsman has also confirmed it does not believe Mazur has changed the law.
So, where would it leave the various regulatory/representative bodies if it turns out Mazur was wrongly decided? It might be embarrassing enough to send out an incorrect letter or two or have a rogue webpage, but it would be much more awkward if it turns out that their carefully considered opinions were wrong on such a fundamental issue.
Discover more from Legal Costs Specialists - Gibbs Wyatt Stone
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1 thought on “Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – Wrongly decided? – Part 1”
The legal profession has a short memory. I suppose the typical career is about 30 years long, but a lot of people will drift from one area of practice to another, so even an old-timer may well only have 10 or 20 years of memory of a particuar practice area. This may mean that even once famous cases, household names to lawyers in a specific field, can be forgotten within a couple of decades.
One such is Hollins v Russell. Once cited dozens of times a day, it became largely historical with the LASPO reforms of 2013. The second half of the judgment, which deals with the Accident Group, was largely forgotten even before that. TAG went into administration in 2003, and I suppose its run-off cases were done by 2007. Who has looked at the second part of Hollins v Russell since then?
People should look at it now. Paragraphs 155 onwards contain a lengthy discussion, in a historical context, of solicitors’ entitlement to delegate their work to supervised but unadmitted staff. The court was quite clear in finding that the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 was not intended to intefere with this. The question now is: was the Legal Services Act 2007 nonetheless intended to? If it was, that intention found no mention in any of the reports or consultatios that led to it; nor in its White Paper, nor in its notes, nor in Parliamentary statements. The Act itself was intended to liberalise the legal services market, not to constrict it.
None of this was considered in Masur. It should have been. The decision might be right; might be wrong (I think the latter). Whichever it is, it is surely not the last word.