Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP – overturned

On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal handed down judgement in the most eagerly awaited decision of the century (at least so far as the legal profession was concerned) in the case of Mazur and another -v- Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369 . The appeal was allowed.

The earlier High Court bombshell decision had held:

“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. In my judgment, this is the proper construction of the LSA.”

This left the business models of many firms of solicitors in disarray and left the careers of many unauthorised lawyers in limbo.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision finding:

“An unauthorised person may lawfully perform any tasks, which are within the scope of the conduct of litigation, for and on behalf of an authorised individual such as a solicitor or appropriately authorised CILEX member, provided the authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person (both formal responsibility  and the responsibilities identified at section 1(3) of the 2007 Act). In that situation, the authorised individual is the person carrying on the conduct of litigation.”

Winners and losers

There are clear winners following this decision:

• Those law firms whose business models relied on delegating work to unauthorised fee earners.
• Unauthorised fee earners (many of whom were well-qualified CILEX practitioners with many years’ experience) who will have had a huge weight lifted off their shoulders.
• Large numbers of potential clients who may have been denied access to justice if only more costly fee earners were able to handle their cases.

There are also clear losers:

• Many insurers (and self-insured bodies) will have lost £millions in potential savings. If Mazur had not been overturned, it may have been possible to avoid paying third-party costs in thousands of cases that had been dealt with by unauthorised individuals.
• This is an absolute catastrophe for many of the legal regulators (particularly the SRA) and many legal representative bodies. Not only had many of them given out contradictory and inaccurate advice over many years, but when this issue received maximum publicity in the light of the High Court decision in Mazur, and they had the opportunity to carefully review matters, they continued to show a complete misunderstanding of the Legal Services Act 2007.

However, this decision does not amount to an invitation for a free-for-all when it comes to the handling of litigation. The lead judgment of Lord Justice Birss explains:

“The delegation of tasks by the authorised individual to the unauthorised person requires proper management supervision and control, the details of which are a matter for the regulators. In some circumstances the degree of appropriate control and supervision will be high, with approval required before things are done. In other, for example routine, circumstances, a lower level of control and supervision will be required. In such cases, it may be sufficient for the authorised individual to conduct regular meetings with the unauthorised person and to sample their work. The degree of prior approval contended for by the Law Society and SRA is not required by the 2007 Act. In short, provided the authorised individual puts in place appropriate arrangements for supervision of and delegation to unauthorised persons, those persons may perform tasks that amount to the conduct of litigation for and on behalf of the authorised individual.

…

It is not unlawful for an unauthorised person to act for and on behalf of an authorised individual so as to conduct litigation under their supervision, provided the authorised individual puts in place appropriate arrangements for the supervision of and delegation to the unauthorised person.”

The following words in bold, from one of the sentences above, are difficult to understand:

“The delegation of tasks by the authorised individual to the unauthorised person requires proper management supervision and control, the details of which are a matter for the regulators”

The question of whether an unauthorised individual is permitted to undertake certain steps is clearly something that needs to be determined by reference to the requirements of the Legal Services Act 2007. There is nothing in the rest of the judgment to suggest differently. Although it is no doubt the responsibility of the relevant regulators to try to give guidance to lawyers as to the proper interpretation of the Act, it would be an entirely different thing to suggest it is the role of the regulators themselves to decide what is permitted. Indeed, it is precisely because many of the regulators (and the SRA in particular) gave conflicting advice before Mazur, and then (in the case of the SRA) made incorrect submissions to the High Court and Court of Appeal as to what the Act permitted that led to the almighty mess the Court of Appeal had to resolve.

The key issue was helpfully summarised in the very short judgment of Lady Justice Andrews:

“In essence, the question in any given set of circumstances will be whether the unauthorised person, in carrying out whatever tasks which fall within the scope of ‘conduct of litigation’ have been delegated to him or her, is in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual. If they are, it is the authorised individual who is conducting the litigation. But if the reality is that the litigation is not being conducted by the unauthorised person for and on behalf of the authorised individual, they will be committing an offence.”

Therein lies the rub. The Court of Appeal’s decision should not be interpreted as allowing unauthorised fee earners complete freedom to run their own cases. This is a far more subtle decision meaning that there needs to be proper supervision and control of the litigation in question. This will be fact specific. There is therefore plenty of scope for argument as to whether an unauthorised fee earner’s actions fall on one side of the line or the other. To what extent the courts will be willing to explore this question (particularly in the context of detailed assessment proceedings) is a different issue. Will the signature to the Bill acquire new significance?