The Mazur Judgment: Legal Implications for Law Firms

The High Court decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP,, has had significant consequences for the way litigation work is structured within law firms. The judgment, which was handed down in September 2025 has raised serious questions about the extent to which non-authorised individuals, including Chartered Legal Executives without practice rights, can undertake litigation, even when working under supervision.

This article considers the judgment, its practical impact on firms, and the forthcoming appeal brought by the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (“CILEx”) .

Case Overview

The dispute arose after Charles Russell Speechlys LLP sought to recover unpaid legal fees totalling £54,263.50 from former clients, Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart. The firm instructed Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors to pursue recovery proceedings. A fee earner at Goldsmith Bowers, who headed the firm’s commercial litigation department, carried out much of the litigation work despite not holding a practising certificate.

The defendants argued that this amounted to unlawful conduct of litigation, contrary to sections 12 and 13 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (“LSA 2007”). Goldsmith Bowers contended that the fee earner was entitled to act under section 21(3) LSA 2007 because he worked under the supervision of an authorised solicitor.

At first instance, HHJ Simpkiss accepted this argument and ordered Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart to pay the costs. However, on appeal, Mr Justice Sheldon took a different view.

The High Court Decision

The High Court drew a clear distinction between assisting in the conduct of litigation and conducting litigation itself. Mr Justice Sheldon held that section 21 LSA 2007 does not permit non-authorised individuals to undertake reserved legal activities simply because they are supervised or employed by an authorised person.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the earlier costs order was set aside.

Implications for Law Firms

The judgment has wide-ranging implications for litigation practices. Many firms rely heavily on paralegals and non-authorised staff to run files day-to-day, with oversight from solicitors. Following Mazur, firms must reassess workflows to ensure that reserved legal activities are undertaken only by authorised persons.

While non-authorised staff may continue to support litigation, they must not cross the line into conducting it. Failure to comply with this carries regulatory, financial, and reputational risk.

The CILEx Appeal

In response,  CILEx has been granted permission to appeal, with a hearing listed for 24 February 2026. CILEx brought the appeal due to concerns about the ruling’s impact on law firms, lawyers (especially CILEX members), access to justice, and the efficient running of the legal system.

The appeal seeks clarity on the lawful scope of work for Chartered Legal Executives and other non-authorised professionals. CILEx is represented on a pro bono basis by Nick Bacon KC, head of 4 New Square, and both Iain Miller and Stephen Nelson from Kingsley Napley.

Conclusion

Unless overturned, the Mazur decision represents a tightening of the boundaries around litigation work. Law firms should act now to audit roles, supervision structures, and authorisation status. In the case of Chartered Legal Executives, considering whether to obtain formal practice rights and become authorised persons in their own right.