If you are involved in litigation in any way, chances are the name Mazur has not been far from your thoughts in the past week.

On the surface, the judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys was relatively straightforward. Peter Middleton, ‘head of commercial litigation’ at Bradford-based Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors but crucially not a qualified representative, had signed particulars of claim in a debt recovery matter.

On first instance, the county court ruled that Middleton was entitled to conduct litigation, a finding that was challenged on appeal.

In the High Court, Mr Justice Sheldon was unequivocal, ruling ‘mere employment by a person who is authorised to conduct litigation is not sufficient for the employee to conduct litigation themselves, even under supervision. The person conducting litigation, even under supervision, must be authorised to do so, or fall within one of the exempt categories.’

While the decision was not complex, the consequences present a headache for many in the profession. Not least those who had relied on the Solicitors Regulation Authority for guidance which turned out to be wrong.

In a letter to GBS last December, the SRA said that the firms’ employees were permitted to undertake reserved legal activities, leading to the conclusion that Middleton had not conducted legal activity without entitlement to do so.

The SRA was invited to make representations before Mr Justice Sheldon and effectively reversed this position, saying it would await the judgment before deciding what steps to take. The judge also made clear that no-one from GBS should face any regulatory action.

In his monthly media briefing this week, chief executive Paul Philip blamed the mistaken advice on a case worker – albeit one who had consulted with the in-house legal team. Checks are now under way to ascertain if the same wrong advice has been given to any other firms. The SRA is looking into whether further guidance is required. 

Perhaps a degree of confusion is understandable, given the convoluted nature of the regulations. The Civil Procedure Rules define a legal representative as a barrister, solicitor, solicitor’s employee, manager of a body recognised by the SRA, or a litigator authorised under the Legal Services Act 2007.

But a chartered legal executive who does not hold separate litigation practice rights is not authorised to conduct litigation. Authorisation only comes through assessment, by portfolio or by training. Legal executives can carry out conveyancing or probate work under supervision, but not litigation.

Paralegals have expressed concern. Holly Hale, an employment paralegal with Wales firm Watkins & Gunn, wrote on Linkedin that CILEX Fellows risk being sidelined, adding: ‘Let’s be clear, CILEX Fellows are not unqualified assistants “learning on the job.” They are rigorously trained, examined, regulated professionals who have chosen a different route into practice. They’ve built careers on the promise that their qualification is a pathway to genuine legal practice, not second-class status.’

Plenty of commentators have sought to inject calm into some of the frenzied discussions about the potential for this judgment to turn the profession upside down.

Ben Dougal, head of practice with TM Legal, said that for firms it should be business as usual in terms of paralegals and trainee solicitors continuing to work under supervision but not conducting litigation.

‘While there is much fretting, mostly it is disproportionate and to some extent unjustified. Moreover, the nakedly opportunistic profiteering by some from the current uncertainty is perhaps as much a reflection of where our legal industry is at present, as it is unsavoury.’

Paul Bennett, a solicitor-advocate who represented the respondent in Mazur but commented in a personal capacity, urged firms not to panic, but to review and keep records to evidence compliance with the role of authorised decision-makers.

‘Who will need to work differently? Those in litigation with fee-earners who do not have a current practising certificate (such as paralegals, trainees, barristers without litigation authorisation, and CILEx members without the relevant additional permission).

‘What should be done now? Create a process map of your team and their tasks to identify risk areas, potential changes, and seek expert advice.’

There may well be compliance headaches for those high-volume claims firms who employ large banks of unqualified case workers. One reddit post this week suggested that the decision had effectively rendered some paralegal jobs as ‘criminal’. There is speculation that some firms have put a pause on litigation while they assess their position. Some commentators predict firms closing, or paralegals refusing to work on files.

Such hyperbole and extreme reactions (even if they are true) are probably misplaced. But there remains such uncertainty that a chastened SRA would be well advised to come out and offer the clarity that its regulated community clearly crave.