To Litigate or Not To Litigate?
- Ashley Barwick
- Sep 30
- 3 min read
If you work in the legal arena, you would be hard-pressed not to have heard about the recent Mazur case (Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341). Here are my reflections on the implications and what you and your legal practice should be doing about them.
The Mazur decision represents a watershed moment for civil litigation practice in England & Wales: the High Court has clarified that unqualified staff, even under supervision, cannot “conduct litigation,” a reserved legal activity. What had often been accepted as routine in many firms (especially in high-volume, claim-management settings) now risks being a criminal offence if not appropriately managed.
Reflections / Implications
Legal clarity vs operational disruption: On the positive side, the case reiterates that which is enacted though the Legal Services Act 2007. What activities are reserved; who may carry them out; what supervision must look like. But this clarity also causes immediate disruption: firms must audit who is doing what. Tasks formerly delegated to paralegals or non-qualified fee-earners may now need to be reallocated or brought back under an authorised individual's direct involvement. The cost of compliance will rise, as will risks around past litigation potentially being attacked for unauthorised conduct.
Risk of access to justice issues: Some non-qualified staff have enabled firms to keep costs lower and process claims at scale. If more work must be done by qualified solicitors or those authorised to carry out reserved activities eg CILEX Practitioners, cost increases may be passed on to clients, or firms might reduce capacity, which may harm litigants, particularly in modest-value claims.
Ethical and regulatory pressure: The ruling signals potential liability, including criminal, if reserved work is done without proper authorisation. The regulatory spotlight (e.g. from the SRA or CILEX Regulation) will sharpen. Firms may need to rethink insurance, staffing, training, and oversight.
Potential Solutions
Define clearly, internally, who is authorised to do what. Mapping tasks in litigation workflows and clearly allocating them either to solicitors or non-qualified staff in ways consistent with the ruling.
Strong supervision, documentation & audit systems: Ensure that any work done by non-qualified staff is properly supervised, approved, recorded. Maintaining logs, oversight, clear delegations.
Training & upskilling of non-qualified staff and supervisors so everyone understands what “conducting litigation” means, what is reserved, and what is not.
Regulatory guidance: The SRA and CILEX Regulation bodies should issue more detailed guidance to help firms understand how to implement the decision, what best practice looks like, and how to avoid criminal exposure.
Cost management & access to justice safeguards: Possibly exploring ways to permit lower-cost providers to engage in certain tasks lawfully, or limiting what reserved activities are tightly defined so lower value cases remain viable.
I have prepared a Mazur Compliance Checklist For Law Firms and a Mazur Checklist Summary which you can download by clicking on the link for each below. They aren't meant to be definitive and should not be relied upon as alternatives to guidance issued by regulatory bodies, the Court or indeed
legislation. It is inevitable that more issues will emanate from this case. However, I hope that you find these helpful tools as starting points.
In summary, Mazur forces a change. While the legal profession must adapt with speed and care, there is opportunity to make practices more robust, transparent, and ethically sound. But without thought, there is real risk of increased cost, reduced access, and unintended harms.
Feel free to email me at enquiries@fraxbiz.com and leave comments on here.
Comments