Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] – What are the impacts?

The recent High Court decision in Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) is already reshaping how solicitors’ firms approach litigation. This briefing explores the judgment and its implications for legal practice.

Background

Charles Russell Speechly had engaged Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (GBS) to recover unpaid legal fees from their clients, Julia Mazur and Jerome Stuart.  Peter Middleton, described as “Head of Commercial Litigation” at GBS signed the Particulars of Claim even though he did not hold a practicing certificate, but the clients objected, arguing that he could not lawfully conduct litigation as he lacked the necessary authority under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007).

The County Court stayed the proceedings initially to allow the issue to be resolved, then later lifted the stay and ordered the clients to pay costs in the sum of £10,653.00 and effectively accepted that Mr. Middleton could act under supervision.

The matter was appealed to the High Court where two central issues were raised:

1. Was Mr. Middleton entitled to conduct litigation under supervision despite not holding a practicing certificate?
2. Was the costs order (requiring Mazur & Stuart to pay £10,653) properly made?

The High Court, led by Mr. Justice Sheldon, held that Mr. Middleton was not entitled to conduct litigation, even under supervision, because he was not authorised to do so.  In particular, the court rejected the idea that employment by a firm that is authorised (or regulated) is sufficient to let the employee conduct litigation. “Mere employment … is not sufficient for the employee to conduct litigation themselves, even under supervision.”

The judgment accepted the distinction drawn by the Law Society and the SRA that non‑authorised staff may assist or support an authorised person in litigation, but they may not themselves take reserved litigation steps that amount to conducting litigation.

The court also found that correspondence from the SRA stating that such a role was permitted was incorrect, and the lower court had erred by reliance.

Because the lower court’s decision (that Mr. Middleton could lawfully conduct litigation) was wrong in law, the costs order far exceeded what was appropriate.  The High Court quashed the £10,653 order and substituted no order as to costs.  Also, the High Court declined to strike out the substantive £54,000 claim (so the underlying dispute was not thrown out) and did not refer Mr. Middleton or other parties to the SRA.

This judgment has caused a stir in legal circles, especially among firms that rely heavily on non‑qualified staff (e.g. paralegals, litigation executives, trainees) undertaking litigation work. The following are some of the key implications:

1. Legal practices must review which tasks non‑qualified staff can undertake, ensuring that any step that qualifies as “conducting litigation” such as signing Claim Forms and issuing proceedings is done only by those authorised;
2. Opponents may successfully challenge costs claims by arguing that steps taken by unauthorised staff undertaking key litigation steps cannot be recovered;
3. Under the LSA 2007 an unauthorised person carrying on reserved litigation is a potential criminal offence (even if performed in the course of employment). Both the individual and the employer may be liable and the SRA has already indicated it is reviewing whether it provided incorrect advice in the past;
4. For those who are not authorised to conduct litigation (e.g. CILEX Fellows without litigation certificates), following this this judgment they cannot take on full litigation roles. they can assist, but cannot assume conduct;
5. The court decided that non‑qualified staff can assist but not conduct, but the boundary between the two is not always clear. What constitutes taking responsibility or exercising professional judgment may be fact‑sensitive;
6. Impact on high‑volume litigation practices
   Firms that rely on delegating many litigation tasks to lower‑grade staff may find their business model disrupted, because more litigation work may need to be done (or overseen) by authorised solicitors.

Conclusion

This case turned on whether a non‑qualified staff member could “conduct litigation” under supervision despite lacking a practicing certificate.  The High Court held they cannot on the basis that mere employment by an authorised firm does not grant the authority to conduct litigation.

The decision has wide ramifications as law firms must carefully align who does what in litigation, costs recovery may be under new scrutiny and there is also a regulatory risk if work is carried out that is deemed a reserved activity by unqualified staff.

At the time of writing, there is no indication that the decision of the High Court is being appealed.

Domenico Malatesta (Costs Lawyer)

October 2025

This briefing is not intended to be an exhaustive statement of the law and should not be relied on as legal advice.