Legal Cost Specialists
The recent guidance on Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) from the Law Society states, in relation to those authorised to conduct litigation: “Both the firm and the individual carrying on the activity must be authorised” This is clearly not intended to refer only to solicitors’ firms as the same […]
Do Costs Lawyers need to work for an authorised firm? Read More »
Last year I represented the paying partying in a detailed assessment where CPR 44.11 misconduct allegations were raised. The £258,583.78 claim for costs was assessed at £nil and the receiving party’s solicitor referred to the SRA (Kapoor v Johal, Johal & Johal [2024] EWHC 2853 (SCCO)). The case received significant coverage in the legal press. Not long
Bill of Costs reduced by 75% because of CPR 44.11 misconduct Read More »
The first decision of a judge reducing costs in light of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has just been reported. Legal Futures has written up last week’s Claims Futures conference where one of the speakers was District Judge Richard Lumb, who sits at Oxford Combined Court as a regional
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – first example of costs being disallowed Read More »
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
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – Wrongly decided? – Part 1 Read More »
The new Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025 has just been published. However, the Foreword is dated 18 August 2025 and the Guide was therefore presumably written some time before that. This is unfortunate. If it had been drafted post-Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), a little more care might
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – SCCO Guide gets in wrong Read More »
The 2025 version of the Senior Court Costs Office Guide is now available.
Senior Courts Costs Office Guide 2025 Read More »
Webinar from Kings Chambers’ Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple breaking down the ratio underpinning the decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP and considering the potential ramifications for unqualified fee earners, CILEX fellows who do not hold practice rights, costs draftspeople and their employers, in both substantive and costs litigation.
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP – webinar Read More »
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
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – will you go to prison? Read More »
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
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – will settled cases be reopened? Read More »
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
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – how to avoid problems Read More »