Court of Appeal Clarifies “Conduct of Litigation” in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

The Court of Appeal has now handed down its much anticipated judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, providing important clarification on the scope of the “conduct of litigation” under the Legal Services Act 2007 and the role of non-authorised fee earners within solicitors’ firms.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal overturned the restrictive approach adopted at first instance and confirmed that not every step taken in the course of litigation amounts to the “conduct of litigation” as a reserved legal activity.

In a judgment that will be welcomed by the profession, the Court held that:

• The statutory prohibition is directed at who is responsible for the conduct of litigation, not every individual who carries out tasks within a case;
• Work undertaken by paralegals, trainees and other non-authorised staff will not necessarily breach the Legal Services Act, provided that an authorised person retains proper control; and
• The concept of “conducting litigation” should be interpreted practically and purposively, reflecting the realities of modern legal practice.

Key Principles Emerging

The decision establishes a clearer and more workable framework:

1. Responsibility vs. Assistance

The critical question is who has conduct of the case, not who performs individual tasks. Day-to-day work may be delegated, but overall responsibility must remain with an authorised person.

2. Reserved Activities Are Narrower Than Suggested at First Instance

The Court rejected the notion that routine procedural steps (such as corresponding with the court or preparing documents) automatically amount to the conduct of litigation.

3. Supervision Is Central

Effective supervision by a solicitor (or other authorised person) is key. Where proper supervision exists, the involvement of non-authorised staff is permissible.

Costs and Retrospective Risk

Importantly, the Court of Appeal’s judgment significantly reduces the risk of widespread costs challenges based on the involvement of non-authorised individuals.

The Court did not accept that work carried out by supervised, non-authorised staff would automatically render costs irrecoverable. This will come as a relief to firms concerned about historic billing practices.

Practical Implications for Firms

While the decision restores a degree of confidence in existing working models, it does not remove the need for care:

• Clear allocation of responsibility: Firms must ensure that an authorised individual is clearly identified as having conduct of each matter.
• Robust supervision structures: Supervision must be real and effective, not merely nominal.
• Defined roles for non-authorised staff: Internal guidance should clarify what tasks can be delegated and where escalation is required.
• Audit and compliance: Firms may wish to review file management and supervision records to demonstrate compliance if challenged.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal has delivered a pragmatic and commercially realistic interpretation of the Legal Services Act 2007. The judgment confirms that modern team-based litigation practice is lawful, provided that ultimate responsibility rests with an authorised lawyer.

This decision brings welcome clarity and reassurance to solicitors’ firms, while reinforcing the importance of proper supervision and accountability in the delivery of legal services.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific advice should be sought for individual matters.