Clarity on Mazur…

A High Court ruling that threatened to disturb long-established practices of delegation and supervision of legal work was recently overturned by the Court of Appeal.

Under the Legal Services Act 2007, conducting litigation is defined as a “Reserved Legal Activity” and only “Authorised Persons” are permitted to carry out Reserved Legal Activities.  It is a criminal offence for an unauthorised person to conduct litigation.

Authorised Persons are essentially firms authorised by an approved regulator such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority or Bar Council along with individual solicitors or barristers.

In the High Court case of Mazur and another v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP it was ruled that unauthorised employees are not permitted to conduct litigation, even while working in an authorised firm and supervised by an authorised person.

Prior to this, many authorised firms operated models whereby reserved legal activities were carried out by unauthorised employees under the supervision of authorised staff.

However, the Court of Appeal subsequently held in Julia Mazur & Ors v CILEX & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 369, that by performing tasks that fall within the statutory definition, unauthorised staff do not “carry on the conduct of litigation” as long as they are supervised by an authorised person.

This new ruling supports arguments made by CILEX that before the Legal Services Act 2007, it was a well-regulated, general and widespread practice for solicitors to delegate work to unqualified individuals. This restoration of long-established practices provides welcome comfort to organisations that rely heavily on unauthorised caseworkers to conduct litigation-related work. This decision will be particularly welcomed by law centres and legal aid practices whose limited resources require them to rely on work being carried out by supervised but unqualified staff.

Additionally, the judgment places renewed emphasis on the quality of the supervision afforded to unauthorised employees, in that authorised staff remain professionally accountable for any work which is delegated. The SRA’s Code of Conduct requires that solicitors ensure that those they supervise are competent and that the level of supervision they receive is appropriate to the nature of their work and their level of experience.

The decision from the Court of Appeal may prompt firms and law centres to review their supervision structures, training arrangements and audit processes to ensure they can establish operational oversight.

Conclusion

The decision from the Court of Appeal reaffirms a fundamental principle that regulation should reflect the realities of legal practice, and supervised delegation is a foundation of how litigation is conducted.

Additionally, it is clear that supervision is not a formality; it is a professional responsibility that must be implemented with attention and accountability. Regulators will therefore be expecting supervision to be evidenced properly.