Author name: Simon Gibbs

Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – Unauthorised fee earners acting alone

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 […]

Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – Unauthorised fee earners acting alone Read More »

Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP – what about pre-issue work?

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

Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP – what about pre-issue work? Read More »

Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – have you committed a criminal offence?

Are you, and/or your firm, guilty of multiple criminal offences? Quite possibly. The decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has been described as an “earthquake” decision and may have a profound effect on the way that many firms operate in the future. Many firms/fee earners may have

Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – have you committed a criminal offence? Read More »

Webinar on Costs in AI

Very interesting webinar on AI in costs from Kings Chambers’ Andrew Hogan and Paul Hughes considering key issues arising out of the use of Artificial Intelligence in legal practice including: What are AI and LLMs. AI ethics. Regulatory concerns. ChatGPT and other open applications. Legal applications (briefly) AI’s application to costs The future of AI.

Webinar on Costs in AI Read More »

Fixed costs where Defendant’s Part 36 offer accepted late

There is stiff competition as to which part of the new(ish) rules concerning Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC) have been most poorly drafted. Nevertheless, it would be difficult to find a more confusing set of provisions than those surrounding late acceptance of a defendant’s Part 36 offer. The problems stem from the way the basic rules

Fixed costs where Defendant’s Part 36 offer accepted late Read More »

Scroll to Top