Uncategorized

The title of today’s post is a bit of a cheat as we are not looking at the direct question of whether Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) was wrongly decided as a matter of law, but a related issue as to whether it matters at all. An unauthorised person […]

With the latest news being that CILEX has applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), it is worth continuing to explore the arguments that might be advanced as to why Mazur was wrong. One of the first to question

One of the arguments advanced as to why Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) may have been wrongly decided comes from Jackson Yamba,  a registered foreign lawyer at Halifax firm SAZ Solicitors, via LinkedIn: “Why Mazur is Wrong on Exempt Persons under the Legal Services Act 2007 Mazur’s interpretation of

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

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

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

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

The 2025 version of the Senior Court Costs Office Guide is now available.

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.  

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