Author name: Simon Gibbs

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 […]

There have been a number of commentators suggesting that parties may start to reopen costs orders, or even judgments in the underlying litigation, in light of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). The arguments would presumably be either: the underlying claim/defence would have been struck out if it had

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

Chartered Legal Executives are one group that have been significantly impacted by Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). It appears that not all Charted Legal Executives are created equally. Those who now qualify via the CILEX Professional Qualification acquire the right to conduct litigation as part of qualification process.

Let us assume that the worst has come to the worst and all work undertaken on a case was performed by an unauthorised fee earner. Where does that leave the issue of costs recovery in light of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)? Firstly, as we have already explored

What does Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) mean for unauthorised costs draftsmen? I would suggest very little. (Separately, authorised Costs Lawyers have the right to conduct litigation (so far as it relates to costs matters).) Steps such as drafting Bills of Costs, Points of Dispute, Replies and Costs Budgets

What does Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) mean for advocacy? The short answer is: nothing. And I do not mean that just in the sense that Mazur was only meant to clarify the existing law as opposed to creating new law. Mazur was concerned with the discrete issue of

Following on with the analysis of the fallout from Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), if an unauthorised fee earner is able to: Deal with their own cases up to the point proceedings are issued and undertake most post-litigation work so long as the case itself is being conducted

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

Lawyers are desperately trying to understand the full impact of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). The decision interprets the Legal Services Act 2007 as meaning that an unauthorised individual can support an authorised solicitor in conducting litigation but an unauthorised individual cannot themselves conduct litigation even under the supervision