The UK’s leading firm of independent costs lawyers

Mazur: Storm in a Tea Cup or the Tip of an Iceberg?

Mazur: Storm in a Teacup or the Tip of an Iceberg?

Posted

A Practical Guide for Solicitors looking Backwards and Forwards

  1. The judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechleys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has put the judicial cat firmly amongst the legal firm pigeons. It has already generated thousands of learned words written by highly respected legal eagles, none of which have provided complete clarity or consistency.
  2. The case is about who is permitted to conduct litigation in the courts of England and Wales, that is to say, the issuing, prosecution and defence of proceedings in a court -see s.4(1) of Schedule 2 Legal Services Act 2007 (“LSA”).
  3. The answer is important because anyone who conducts litigation who is not authorised to do so, will commit a criminal offence under s.14(1) LSA and could face a term of imprisonment of two years and an unlimited fine! Not only that, if that person does so as an employee of a person authorised to conduct litigation such as a solicitor, the employer, too, will commit a criminal offence under s.16 LSA.
  4. Before beginning a trawl through a labyrinth of rules and regulations in order to be certain that no s.14/s.16 offence is being committed, it is appropriate first to explain what Mazur was,  and what it was not about.  

The Facts

At first instance before HHJ Simpkiss

5. A London Law firm instructed GBS to recover outstanding fees from Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart. Mr Middleton, as “Head of Commercial Litigation” at GBS, signed the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim.  Thereafter: –

  • Mrs Mazur contended that only persons authorised by law or by an approved regulator are permitted to carry out a “reserved activity” under s2 and Schedule 12 LSA such as the conduct of litigation:  Mr Middleton did not have a solicitor’s practising certificate and should be replaced.
  • The district judge stayed the proceedings pending an explanation.
  • Mr Middleton was replaced by a solicitor with a practising certificate.
  • GBS applied successfully to lift the stay, having satisfied the court that Mr Middleton was entitled to perform the work because the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”) had stated in writing that he was deemed to be authorised to do so under s 21(3)(b) LSA, being an employee of GBS, which was a “regulated body duly authorised”.
  •  Mrs Mazur was ordered to pay costs of £10,653 for lifting the stay.

The Appeal

6. Mrs Mazur appealed not against the costs order, but because she said that the decision below that Mr Middleton was entitled to conduct litigation, was wrong in law.

The Judgment

7. Mr Justice Sheldon agreed:-

  • There is a crucial distinction between an employee who is “supporting” or assisting an authorised solicitor in conducting litigation, and an employee who “conducting” the litigation under supervision. 
  • “supporting “is permitted but “conducting litigation” under supervision of a person authorised to do so is not and is a criminal offence under s.14(1).
  • Mere employment by a person who is authorised to conduct litigation is not sufficient for the employee to conduct litigation themselves, even under supervision, contrary to finding below relying on s.23(3)(b) LSA. Indeed, in such a circumstance the employer will commit a criminal offence under s.16 LSA.

8. Given these findings, the costs order below to pay £10,653 was quashed and replaced by an order that each party bear their own costs. That was because Mrs Mazur had won the appeal on the costs, but the London law firm had been successful in lifting the stay. No one wanted to appeal, so that was that.

9. Or was it? Innocuous enough, or so it would seem?  

10. Au contraire: the judgment has led to a furious debate about whether firms of solicitors, large and small, have for years been committing criminal offences by delegating work in litigation cases to fee earners who have no legal entitlement to undertake the work, even under close supervision.

11. The Key Takeaways are

  • Allowing unauthorised fee earners to conduct litigation under supervision of persons authorised to do so, is a criminal offence under s.14(1) by the employee who did it and under s.16 by the employer who authorised it,
  • But, nothing done on a case before the issue of proceedings is conducting litigation, so cannot be a criminal offence under s.14(1) or s.16,
  • And after the issue of proceedings, no offence is committed if an unauthorised person assists or supports an authorised person who is conducting litigation

12. In this context, it is important to remember what is meant by “the court” : according to the Law Society  Guidance Note 16 October 2025, the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and other similar regulatory and disciplinary tribunals  are NOT the court, BUT the Coroners Court is “court” (although according to s.207 LPA, court includes

“(a) a tribunal (b) a court-martial (c) a statutory Inquiry …” !)

Post Mazur: Identifying the “Saints” and the “Sinners”

The “Saints” who can conduct litigation upon the issue of proceedings

13. Authority to conduct litigation is a right given by law or by an approved regulator as follows:-  

  • Solicitors – The Solicitors Regulation Authority + practising certificate
  • Barristers – Bar Standards Board + a litigation extension, otherwise can only give advice and appear in court
  • Chartered Legal Executives- CILEx Regulation + Independent Practice Rights
  • Costs Lawyers – Costs Lawyers Standards Board +   the Costs Lawyer Qualification (CLQ) for costs litigation only

The “Sinners” who Can’t

14. Everyone else and anyone who does so, even under supervision, commits a criminal offence under s14 LSA 2007

Looking Back: What are the likely consequences of a Mazur breach?

(i) Civil Law

15. What is done, is done! Accordingly,   where issued cases have been conducted on a day to day basis by unqualified fee earners under the supervision of a solicitor, barrister, chartered legal executive or in costs litigation, a costs lawyer who are themselves authorised to conduct litigation, the damage will have been done already: ss.14 and 16 LSA will have been breached and the consequences are already being seen in the recovery of costs. District judges have disallowed all the costs of grade D fee earners at summary assessment where Forms N260 have not contained any solicitor time. In other words, where no evidence has been put before the court that the unqualified fee earner has been assisting and supporting the authorised fee earner in the conduct of the litigation, the parties with the favourable costs order have lost the lot.  

16. Will such outcomes be reflected in larger cases? Expressed differently, where a task has been carried out by an unauthorised person, does that taint the work with illegality, making everything done a nullity?

17. No, it does not, ruled the Court of Appeal in Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M & E Engineering UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2865: service of the claim form by an unauthorised person (in that case “claims consultants”) did not automatically render service invalid nor the claim as a whole void. Whilst service was conducting litigation, undertaking the task via an unauthorised person did not create a nullity and service was valid unless the court decided to set it aside.

18. Where there is doubt, can matters be put right retrospectively? The first point to remember is that nothing done before the issue of proceedings is conducting litigation, so that work is outside the tentacles of s.14(1). Upon proceedings being commenced, however, the proceedings become contentious business and the test to apply will be who assumed responsibility for the conduct of the litigation and exercised professional judgment – see Mazur at [64] approving the SRA’s submission at [42].

19. In this context, it is important to remember that members of the legal profession are officers of the court. It follows that where costs are payable by an opponent, the court cannot be misled by the party receiving the costs by using an argument that those involved in the case were supporting an authorised fee earner, when in reality, they were in fact running the matter under supervision.

20. That said, the evidence of what was done on the case will be found in the files of the receiving parties’ solicitors. On a detailed assessment of the costs of the action, all such material will remain privileged as between the solicitors and the court. It follows that where such matters as:-

  • signing a claim form,
  • serving proceedings,
  • making or accepting a Part 36 offer
  • serving Notice of discontinuance under CPR 38

were undertaken by the solicitor, that will be the conduct of litigation with no SS.14/16 worries. That will also be the case even though other tasks may have been dealt with by non-qualified persons under supervision (where not assisting or supporting) where they have been limited to mechanical/ clerical/ administrative tasks e.g.,

  • taking a statement from a client or witness
  • preparing and paginating a trial bundle,
  • undertaking routine correspondence such a booking expert witnesses
  • attending a conference/court with the Grade A to take a note
  • evidence gathering,
  • disclosure,
  • undertaking a “watching brief” for example at a coroner’s court

21. In such cases, it will be for the costs judge to decide who has assumed responsibility for the case and exercised professional judgment. Expressed differently, it will not be a trump card for the paying party to argue that an unqualified person worked on the case, so we pay nothing. The acid test will likely to be: who was responsible for and exercised professional judgment in the conduct of the litigation?

22. If that person was unauthorised working under supervision, even then it may not be game set and match to the paying party. If there has been a breach of the LPA, then the court may well take the view that that would be a matter for the Regulator to deal with as a regulatory/disciplinary matter, and not the Costs Judge . It follows that if the costs were reasonably incurred whoever did the work, they will be allowed in principle. The court will leave it to the regulator to decide what to do about the miscreants.

(ii) Criminal Law

23. Will the regulators be taking criminal proceedings against thousands of unauthorised employees and their authorised employers where there is a suggestion that the litigation has been conducted under supervision, and thereby is criminal matter under ss.14 and 16?

24. The likelihood is highly improbable given the historic performance of the regulators. In Mazur, the advice of the SRA to GBS upon the firm self-reporting about Mr Middleton’s involvement in the case was that :-

“[GBS’] employees are permitted to undertake reserved legal activities due to section 21(3). We are satisfied that Mr Middleton has not conducted reserved legal activity without entitlement to do so”

25. Likewise, CILEx Regulation’s website advice until removed in December 2023 was the following :-

“ What Reserved Legal Activities am I authorised to carry on as a Member?…….
If you are employed by and working under the supervision of, an authorised person (i.e. CILEx Practitioner, solicitor, barrister, licensed conveyancer), in a law firm or in-house, you may carry on the reserved legal activity that the authorised person is entitled to carry on, by virtue of being an employee.
Members employed in solicitors firms are authorised to carry out the following reserved legal activities:……
Conduct of litigation.” [emphasis added]

26. What of PC Plod being interested in criminal proceedings? With the jails bursting at the seams and the Crown Courts listing hearings in 2029, not a chance is the answer unless the government has law firms in its sights. That possibility has been raised by the Minister for Courts and Legal Services (see her letter dated 31 October 2025 to the Chair of the Justice Committee) that:-

 “It is essential that the public can see that the system is capable of identifying and addressing serious professional failings…….in February 2025, the SRA had more than 20 live investigations underway into solicitors and firms who were working on behalf of the Post Office/Royal Mail Group and will take action where standards have not been met”.

27. In reality, however, the Post Office litigation is likely to be a unique case and, in these circumstances, for the remaining firms from the High Street to the City, they should be able to rest easy in their beds. After all, where the regulators themselves have given wrong advice, are they likely to be casting the first stone? Surely not!  

Looking Ahead: How to Avoid ss.14/16 LPA Errors

28. The most important thing is to remember  that :-

(1) An authorised person must conduct litigation.

(2) If work is delegated to non-authorised persons eg para-legals, trainees, legal executives without I.P. rights, they cannot conduct the litigation under supervision

(3) unauthorised persons are permitted only to support  or assist the authorised person.

 (4) The test is likely to be who assumed responsibility for the case and exercised professional judgment.

How Can Conducting the Litigation by an Authorised Person Supported and Assisted Person be Evidenced?

29. This ought to be straightforward in any well-run practice

(1) Check the retainer letter: make sure that the client is told who is conducting the litigation!

Avoid at all costs :-

“Responsibility – I am Joe Bloggs a Senior Paralegal and will be responsible for the conduct of your High Court claim subject to the supervision of Florence Nightingale, a solicitor and partner”

Do it this way!

“Responsibility – I am Florence Nightingale, a Solicitor and partner and will be responsible for the conduct of your High Court claim in which I shall be assisted and supported by Joe Bloggs a senior legal Paralegal”

(2) Reference correspondence (emails/letters) the old-fashioned way thereby creating an evidential chain of command, using as the reference -the partner initials, person assisting initials, matter number eg  -FN/JB/1234

(3) Tell the opponent in the letter of claim who is conducting the litigation

“Florence Nightingale a solicitor and partner in this firm has conduct of this matter assisted and supported by Joe Bloggs a senior para-legal” 

Remember, nothing done before that moment and indeed the writing of the letter of claim, will have been the conduct of litigation.

(4) Maintain dull, boring Attendance notes!

Record

(i) who did the work

(ii) what they did

(iii) why they did it

(iv) when they did it and how long it took

Where the work was undertaken by a non-qualified fee earner, it should be recorded to show that this was done in conjunction with the authorised fee earner in providing support and assistance in the tasks in question.

Concluding Thoughts

30. Looking ahead, firms who adopt the working practices suggested above have nothing to fear from Mazur going forward. It will be a lot of fuss about nothing: a veritable storm in a tea cup indeed rather than the tip of the iceberg.

31. Looking back, however, there have been predictions about a new costs war with paying parties contending at detailed assessment that where work was delegated by a supervising partner to a non-qualified fee earner, nothing is payable because the job was done illegally.

32. Whether that happens, time will tell, but it may also depend upon whether Mazur is given a new lease of life by the Court of Appeal. Although not invited by Sheldon J to make representations, CILEx Regulation has applied for permission to appeal because the regulator believes that “….the uncertainties and real-world impacts triggered by the judgment need to be fully ventilated through this appeal process”. It follows that the judicial process may still have life in it, albeit that any such appeal, even if permission is given, would not be heard before 2027 unless expedited.

33. That all said, given that for years insurers have and continue to use unqualified fee earners  when running defences in the conduct of litigation, it is an interesting question just how willing they will be   to contest bills of costs and statements for summary assessment, when it will be argued in reply that (i) what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and (ii) people who live in glass houses should not throw stones!