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 ...

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 ...

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 ...

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 ...

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 ...

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), ...

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 ...

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 ...

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 ...

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 ...

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 ...

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, ...

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 ...

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 ...