In the Mazur case, Mr Justice Sheldon ruled that an employee of an authorised firm cannot conduct litigation simply by virtue of their employment, even if supervised by an authorised person. However, on 31 March 2026 this was overturned by the Court of Appeal. This has significant implications for many legal businesses in England & Wales.
The new ruling supported the central argument made by CILEX: that, before the Legal Services Act 2007, “there was a widespread, general and well-regulated practice of delegation by solicitors to unqualified individuals.” By stating this, Sir Colin Birss, the Chancellor of the High Court, confirmed that the introduction of the Legal Services Act 2007 did not intend to fundamentally change this position.
The key section in the judgment is paragraph 187, which lists the overall conclusions. This confirms:
“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.”
This makes clear that the responsibility for litigation lies with the supervising, authorised lawyer, even where the tasks have been carried out by staff who are not legally qualified.
Three issues were key to the decision.
First issue: supervision
In paragraph 27 of the judgment, Birss ruled:
“The result of this case means that the role of an unauthorised person in the context of the conduct of litigation is not limited merely to assisting or supporting an authorised individual, and the distinction drawn in the court below by the Law Society and SRA, and adopted by the judge, between (a) supporting (or assisting) and (b) conducting litigation under supervision was not correct. It is not unlawful for an unauthorised person to act for and on behalf of an authorised individual so as to conduct litigation under their supervision, provided the authorised individual puts in place appropriate arrangements for the supervision of and delegation to the unauthorised person.”
Therefore, Birss contended that Mr Justice Sheldon was incorrect to distinguish between (a) supporting or assisting an authorised solicitor in conducting litigation, and (b) conducting litigation under the supervision of an authorised solicitor.
Regarding the level of supervision, Birss confirmed that, “in some circumstances the degree of appropriate control and supervision will be high, with approval required before things are done” but in more routine circumstances, “a lower level of control and supervision would be required.”
Second issue: tasks
Further to the above, at paragraph 29 the judgment confirmed that whilst clarity is desirable regarding tasks, “it is simply not possible to provide a comprehensive list of all those tasks that fall within and outside the conduct of litigation.”
However, at paragraph 193 the Law Society provided a list of litigation work ‘unlikely’ to fall within the statutory definition of “conduct of litigation”. Birss identified seven items from this that were “neither challenged nor debated”:
- Pre-litigation work
- Giving legal advice in connection with court proceedings
- Conducting correspondence with the opposing party on behalf of clients
- Gathering evidence
- Instructing and liaising with experts and counsel
- Signing a statement of truth in respect of a statement of case
- Signing any other document that the CPR permits to be signed by a legal representative, as defined by CPR Part 2.3
Third issue: working model
The third issue concerned the working model or practice that should be adopted by law centres. Birss confirmed that this is governed by the same principles as the first issue, and thus no separate treatment is necessary regarding this.
Impact on the legal sector
This ruling provides for a return to relative ‘normality’, and the position prior to the Mazur ruling. The High Court ruling had broad implications for both the legal profession and the wider justice system, and this has now been reversed.
The ruling will be particularly welcomed by those businesses and law centres that previously relied on legal executives, paralegals and trainees materially to undertake litigation under supervision, with many individuals also being employed solely on this basis.
Had the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court judgment, costs would have increased and subsequent access to justice would have become increasingly limited to many members of the public. Further, there may have been further costs challenges from parties who questioned whether legal work was carried out lawfully.
Therefore, this decision avoids the risk of criminalising legal work that was previously routine, supports more widespread access to justice, and retains the ability of law firms to utilise legal services and teams most effectively, regardless of whether they are a solicitor. Moreover, the judgment still provides appropriate safeguards and supervisory requirements, ensuring that accountability is ensured and that professional standards and regulations are abided by.
This article was co-authored by Trainee Freya Kenny.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]