The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling that had threatened to unsettle long-established models of supervised legal work. In Julia Mazur & Ors v CILEX & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 369, the court held that unauthorised staff do not ‘carry on the conduct of litigation’ merely by performing tasks that fall within the statutory definition, provided they act under the supervision of an authorised person.
The decision reinstates a pragmatic understanding of how litigation is conducted and provides welcome reassurance to organisations that rely heavily on supervised unauthorised caseworkers, including those delivering publicly funded services where staffing structures are constrained.
The Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA) reserves certain activities to authorised persons, including the ‘conduct of litigation’. It does not expressly address whether unauthorised individuals may perform litigation tasks under supervision, though it has long been assumed they can, with trainee solicitors, paralegals, caseworkers and administrative staff routinely undertaking litigation-related work under a supervising solicitor’s responsibility.
That settled understanding was thrown into doubt by the High Court’s decision in Julia Mazur and anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), in which Mr Justice Sheldon held that an unauthorised person who performs tasks falling within the statutory definition is themselves ‘carrying on’ litigation, even if acting under supervision. The ruling prompted widespread concern, appearing to criminalise routine delegation and cast doubt on the operating models of law centres and legal aid practices.
The Court of Appeal’s starting point was linguistic: ‘conduct of litigation’ refers to tasks to be undertaken; ‘carry on’ denotes the direction and control of, and responsibility for, those tasks. Responsibility, the court held, is the decisive factor. An unauthorised individual who performs litigation work under the direction of an authorised person does not assume responsibility and therefore does not ‘carry on’ the reserved activity.
This interpretation reflects the statutory purpose, recognising that parliament legislated against a backdrop of common supervised delegation, without intending to disrupt it or remove solicitors’ responsibility.
The court also noted that the distinction drawn by the High Court between (a) assisting or supporting and (b) conducting litigation under supervision was not
correct. An unauthorised person is allowed to act for and on behalf of an authorised individual so as to conduct litigation, provided they are appropriately supervised by the authorised individual.
A key aspect of the judgment is its explicit recognition of the operating models used by law centres and legal aid practices, which rely on unauthorised caseworkers supervised by authorised individuals. The High Court’s approach would have rendered such models unlawful.
The Court of Appeal’s decision restores certainty. Provided that appropriate supervision and controls are in place, the use of unregulated staff remains compatible with the LSA. This is particularly important in areas such as immigration, housing and criminal defence, where the volume of work and the financial constraints of legal aid make delegation indispensable.
The judgment also places renewed emphasis on the quality of supervision. Authorised individuals remain professionally accountable for all delegated work. The SRA’s Code of Conduct requires solicitors to ensure that those they supervise are competent and that the level of oversight is appropriate to the nature of the work and the experience of the individual.
In high-volume environments, this is challenging. The Court of Appeal’s decision may prompt regulators to revisit guidance on what constitutes adequate supervision, particularly where unregulated staff undertake substantial casework. Firms and law centres would be well advised to review their supervision structures, training arrangements and audit processes to ensure they can demonstrate effective oversight.
The Law Society this week issued an updated practice note following this ruling, recommending that solicitors and firms ensure their processes and records demonstrate that authorised persons retain responsibility for tasks delegated to unauthorised persons.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the authorised individual to establish appropriate arrangements to properly direct, and manage supervision and control of unauthorised persons when they are carrying out tasks in litigation. What is appropriate will depend on the circumstances, including:
1. The complexity and nature of the work itself;
2. The experience, competence and capacity of the unauthorised individual; and
3. The availability of alternative means of support.
The Law Society advises that the authorised individual should have sufficient relevant experience and competence to supervise effectively.
The judgment arrives amid wider debate about the regulation of legal services. CILEX’s intervention reflects its ongoing efforts to clarify the scope of its members’ rights and the boundaries of reserved activities, highlighting tensions between a statutory framework that reserves certain activities to authorised persons and a modern legal services market in which unregulated providers play an increasingly prominent role.
While the Court of Appeal’s decision does not resolve those broader questions, it reaffirms a fundamental principle: regulation must reflect the realities of legal practice. Supervised delegation is not a loophole or a regulatory blind spot; it is a cornerstone of how litigation is conducted.
For practitioners, the message is twofold. First, the established model of supervised work remains lawful and effective. Second, the responsibility borne by authorised individuals is as significant as ever. Supervision is not a formality; it is a professional obligation that must be exercised with care and accountability. Regulators will be expecting supervision to be properly evidenced, and not just a ‘tick-box’ exercise.
Vicky Lankester is an associate in the criminal and regulatory team at Brett Wilson
No comments yet