Judgment in Mazur case forces firms to rethink litigation supervision, sparking alarm
A High Court ruling on the role of unqualified fee-earners in litigation has triggered warnings of “nationwide disruption” for law firms across England and Wales.
The decision, handed down in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys, has unsettled practices reliant on paralegals and other non-admitted staff. Mr Justice Sheldon ruled that while unqualified employees may assist solicitors with litigation, they cannot themselves conduct litigation, even under supervision.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the Law Society intervened in the case. However, the judgment has left many firms questioning whether their long-standing staffing structures remain compliant.
Paul Bennett, partner and solicitor-advocate at Bennett Briegal, represented Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors in the case. Speaking in a personal capacity, he said: “The long-established practice of solicitors running cases with support from non-admitted staff remains lawful. But firms must now evidence who is doing what and why. Compliance departments will be well advised to review their approaches and document why work is lawful.”
Embed from Getty ImagesHe warned that firms heavily staffed by non-admitted employees, particularly in high-volume consumer markets, face new compliance risks.
Stephen Lund, chief executive of Manchester firm Antony Hodari, criticised the SRA’s silence. Writing on LinkedIn, he said: “It is hard to imagine the regulator did not anticipate nationwide disruption. Their inbox must now be full of self-reports. Yet despite weeks to prepare, no guidance or practical steps have been published.”
Lund predicted the ruling would mean “millions of pounds of wasted costs”, further delays for claimants and defendants, and thousands of individuals left anxious about their jobs.
Andrew Hogan, a costs barrister at Kings Chambers, described the decision as a “bomb over the profession”. He explained that firms may now face satellite disputes over pleadings signed by unauthorised staff. In Mazur, the court declined to strike out defective pleadings, but Hogan warned that not every case would be treated so leniently. He added: “If a firm relied on an unauthorised person to conduct litigation, opponents may resist paying for those acts. On the other hand, costs could dramatically increase if delegation is curtailed.”
Iain Miller, regulatory partner at Kingsley Napley, said the judgment exposed the unresolved question of what counts as “conduct of litigation”. He suggested access to justice may suffer as firms restrict the responsibilities of paralegals, raising service costs. Miller clarified that probate and conveyancing remain unaffected due to statutory exemptions under the Legal Services Act.
Other practitioners voiced concern over training. Mark Aspin, director at Cartmell Shepherd, questioned whether solicitor apprentices and trainees would be prevented from managing their own files. He said: “I want them to learn how to conduct litigation. My interpretation was that close supervision was sufficient. From one reading of this judgment, however, it may not be permitted.”
Alfie Cranmer of Pinsent Masons suggested bulk litigation firms may argue that unqualified staff simply implement the strategies of authorised solicitors, rather than exercising independent judgment. He called on the SRA to consider issuing guidance.
Stephen Nelson, a senior associate at Kingsley Napley and former SRA head of legal, added that opposing litigators may now raise the issue more frequently in disputes. He also cautioned that other legal professionals, including barristers and CILEX lawyers, face restrictions depending on their practising rights.
For now, firms await further clarification. An SRA spokesperson told Legal Futures only that the regulator “will be looking at the judgment”.
Until formal guidance emerges, law firms face uncertainty over staffing, supervision, and compliance in litigation—a shift already being described as seismic for the profession.