On 16 September, the High Court delivered its ruling in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys, which examined who is authorised to conduct litigation on behalf of clients.

The Law Society is aware of the questions that the ruling has raised amongst members about their compliance with the Legal Services Act 2007.

The case does not change the law or regulations that were already in place, but it does highlight the issues in relation to the role that non-qualified staff undertake when working within regulated organisations in the context of litigation and potentially challenges current working practices in some firms.

Many practitioners have been asking what they should be doing in response to the judgment. We have engaged with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to provide urgent clarification on the question of where the boundary is between conducting litigation and supporting an authorised person who conducts litigation. This is an area which the court did not consider in detail.

The judgment

The case restates the position in the Legal Services Act 2007 and in the SRA’s 2022 guidance note on supervision that even within a regulated entity, only an “authorised person” may “conduct” litigation.

Unqualified staff are permitted to support an authorised person in the conduct of litigation but not conduct it themselves.

Over the years, it appears that confusion has developed around the regulatory position, in particular the distinction between “conducting” litigation and supporting an authorised solicitor in undertaking the reserved activity of conducting litigation.

This judgment only relates to litigation, not to other reserved activities. However, firms working in other reserved areas should nonetheless be alert to the requirements of the Legal Services Act 2007 in relation to each different area of reserved activity and relevant SRA guidance, particularly in respect of supervision.

The judgment would be useful reading for those interested in the application of Part 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 together with Schedules 2 and 3 to the Act, which deal with reserved legal activities and exemptions in relation to those activities.

Next steps

The Law Society considers that there is now a need for clear and specific guidance and continues to work with the SRA to achieve further clarity for practitioners, being mindful of the potential consequences for firms and the regulatory objectives of improving access to justice and protecting the interests of consumers.

The Law Society has a practice note available to members outlining the regulatory requirements of setting up a practice. We also have a practice note on supervision.

Members can also contact the SRA’s professional ethics helpline for additional support.

Richard Atkinso, President, Law Society of England and Wales