The Mazur judgment on the conduct of litigation overruled

Readers will be aware from September last year, of the seismic shock this case led to in the legal world and our understanding of who can lawfully conduct litigation. The Court of Appeal yesterday overruled the High Court in the case of Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2026] EWCA Civ 369 reverting the regulation of the legal services industry most of the way back to what it was before this case. From what could be reasonably seen as something of a rollercoaster ride for those delivering legal services as unauthorised persons over the past six months, it does remain to be seen whether this will bring about much change from the pre-September 2025 position – but in the meantime, one can hear the sighs of relief echoing around the certain corners of the legal sector.

Practically going forward, it is for authorised individuals to retain responsibility for conducting litigation, meaning they must give proper direction, management supervision and control of those working on their behalf. 

This case arose from the fact that certain activities are “reserved” for practising solicitors and those individuals who are either exempt or otherwise “authorised” to carry them out. The “conduct of litigation” is defined as one such reserved activity. 

In a huge shock to the legal services industry, the September 2025 decision of the High Court was that that “unauthorised” individuals may not “conduct litigation” even under supervision from an “authorised” individual. This decision had widespread and profound implications for unauthorised individuals (meaning individuals not specifically authorised to conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007) who were conducting litigation across the legal sector. Sitting behind the restrictions is not just potential enforcement action by the regulators, but also a possible criminal offence. 

On appeal against that decision by the approved regulator and representative body for chartered legal executives, CILEX, the Court of Appeal held that unauthorised individuals can conduct litigation, so long as they are appropriately supervised by an authorised individual - although the level of what is appropriate supervision will differ depending on the complexity of the case.

The core issue addressed by the Court of Appeal was whether the High Court judge had been right to hold that unauthorised persons were “carrying on the conduct of litigation” if they were doing so under the supervision of an authorised individual.  

The Court of Appeal accepted CILEX’s submission that the correct construction of “carry on the conduct of litigation” has two dimensions. “The conduct of litigation” is the performance of the task. “Carry on” means that the authorised person must hold responsibility for that performance. As a result, an authorised person may conduct the litigation but must do so only on behalf of an authorised individual. An unauthorised individual may not “carry it on” or hold responsibility for it. 

Paragraph 187 sums up the Court’s position: “An unauthorised person may lawfully perform any tasks, which are within the scope of the conduct of litigation, for and on behalf of an authorised individual such as a solicitor or appropriately authorised CILEX member, provided the authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person (both formal responsibility and the responsibilities identified at section 1(3) of the 2007 Act). In that situation, the authorised individual is the person carrying on the conduct of litigation.”

It was interesting to note that the Court of Appeal placed a great deal of emphasis on the context and history of the 2007 Act, as well as the Explanatory Notes to it, before turning to consider the ordinary meaning of the words used in the Act. A more traditional method of construction would be to consider the ordinary meaning first, before turning to the less heavily weighted factors of context and explanatory material. The relevance of the history of the Act is clear though, as CILEX’s submissions noted that there was a widespread practice of delegation by solicitors before the LSA 2007, and, they said, the LSA 2007 did not change that.

The Court refrained from giving an exhaustive definition of what constitutes “conducting litigation”, stating that this was addressed by two much-cited cases of Baxter and Ndole. In essence, the result of those judgments is that it is a question of fact and degree whether a task is within the meaning of “conducting litigation”. The question to be addressed is whether the person performing a task has actually taken responsibility for it, or has simply undertaken the task as a mechanical action, such as signing something already (informally approved). Despite not wanting to comment on this definition, the Court did provide an indicative list of tasks that are unlikely to fall within “conduct of litigation” at paragraph 193. 

The Court did note that the degree of appropriate control and supervision will depend on the circumstances. For simple claims (such as debt claims or routine personal injury claims), unauthorised individuals may complete a larger proportion of the work, with the responsibility of the authorised individual being fulfilled by a more light touch review. The converse will be the case for more complex matters. 

This will still be a space to watch as, at least the Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority and the Law Society, will all speedily be rewriting their guidance!
If you have any questions about this topic, please contact Melanie Carter, Partner and Head of Public and Regulatory Team.