CILEX Wins Appeal: Court of Appeal Clarifies Delegation in Litigation
Key Takeaways from Mazur v CRS
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP marks a significant development in how the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA) is interpreted in modern legal practice. Central to the ruling is the confirmation that supervised delegation of litigation tasks to non‑authorised staff is lawful, reflecting long‑standing professional reality.
The court rejected the High Court’s strict distinction between “assisting” and “conducting” litigation, instead holding that responsibility, direction, and control by an authorised lawyer are what determine who is “conducting litigation” for the purposes of the Act. Paragraph 27 in the judgment is central: the court held that it is not unlawful for unauthorised individuals to carry out litigation tasks on behalf of an authorised lawyer, provided proper supervision and delegation structures are in place. This represents a decisive shift away from the narrower interpretation previously adopted by the Law Society and the SRA, which had confined non-authorised staff to a purely supportive role.
Paragraph 187 is also key, concluding that authorised individuals retain ultimate responsibility for litigation even when tasks are delegated. As such, it is the authorised lawyer, not the employee, who is deemed to be “conducting litigation” for the purposes of the LSA.
The practical effect is considerable. Delegated tasks , such as drafting pleadings or issuing proceedings, can continue to be carried out by trained, supervised staff without exposing firms or individuals to criminal risk. This restores confidence across the sector and ensures the efficient operation of litigation teams.
For law firms, law centres, and in-house teams, the judgment provides much-needed certainty. It endorses a modern, team-based approach to litigation while maintaining safeguards through professional accountability. More broadly, it supports access to justice by enabling efficient use of legal resources and promoting a diverse workforce.
In short, the Court of Appeal has restored a workable and principled balance: delegation is permitted, responsibility is not.
Comment from Nick McDonnell
To reflect the court’s confirmation of modern working practices, Nick McDonnell, Director and Costs Lawyer at Kain Knight, welcomed the clarity provided:
“The Court of Appeal’s decision provides long‑awaited clarity on how the Legal Services Act 2007 operates in modern legal practice. It confirms that properly supervised delegation is not only lawful, but fundamental to the efficient delivery of legal services.
By rejecting the rigid distinction between ‘assisting’ and ‘conducting’ litigation, the court has recognised the reality of how law firms and legal organisations operate on a daily basis. Crucially, it makes clear that responsibility for litigation rests with the authorised lawyer, even where tasks are carried out by experienced non‑authorised staff.
This is a pragmatic and welcome outcome. It avoids the risk of criminalising routine legal work, supports access to justice, and preserves the ability of firms to deploy skilled teams effectively, while maintaining appropriate safeguards through supervision, accountability, and professional standards.
Overall, the judgment strikes a sensible balance between regulatory protection and the practical needs of a modern, diverse legal profession.”
This aligns with the Court of Appeal’s recognition that delegation has always been a “widespread, general and well‑regulated practice,” consistent with how litigation teams have historically operated.
Nick’s comments were published in The Law Society Gazette and Legal Futures, 31 March 2026.
