The Law Society has now published a Practice Note in response to the recent High Court judgment in Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). For a summary of the background to the case, please refer to our earlier article, Mazur v CRS Part One.
Recap: The Mazur Judgment
The central issue in Mazur was whether a non-authorised individual is permitted to conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised person. Under section 13(2) of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007), the conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity. This means that it can only be carried out by individuals or entities who are either authorised by an approved regulator or who are otherwise exempt under the Act.
The High Court held that non-authorised persons cannot carry on the reserved legal activity of the conduct of litigation simply by virtue of being an employee of an authorised firm. Both the firm and the individual carrying on the activity must be authorised. Whilst a non-authorised person cannot carry out the conduct of litigation under the supervision of an authorised person, they can support an authorised person in undertaking the conduct of litigation.
In the wake of the judgment, many in the legal sector called for practical guidance. The Law Society has now responded by issuing a Practice Note to assist solicitors and their teams in interpreting and applying the judgment in practice.
The Law Society’s response: what falls within ‘conducting litigation’
To understand on the boundaries of the ‘conduct of litigation’ in practice, it is helpful to examine each stage of the litigation process in turn.
1. Prior to the issue of proceedings
The ‘conduct of litigation’ begins only once court proceedings have been formally issued. Anything done before that stage, or without any involvement of the court, falls outside the definition (see Heron Bros Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council (No 2) [2015] EWHC 1009 (TCC) (obiter)). This includes activities such as advising on the merits of commencing proceedings, drafting Particulars of Claim, or corresponding with other parties with a view to settling the dispute before issuing proceedings.
More broadly, in Agassi v Robinson (Inspector of Taxes) (Costs) [2006] 1 WLR, the court concluded that giving legal advice in connection with court proceedings does not, in itself, amount to the ‘conduct of litigation’. In JK v MK [2020] EWFC 2, the judge provided a helpful analogy: suppose you are going through a divorce and need to complete various court forms to begin the court proceedings. If your brother, who was divorced two years earlier, advises you on how to fill in the forms or the court procedure more generally, he is not committing a criminal offence. Hence, the judgment in Agassi underscored the need for a strict interpretation of the statutory definition – limited to formal steps in the proceedings – noting that any breach constitutes a criminal offence.
2. During the course of proceedings
The question of what activities amount to the ‘conduct of litigation’ during the course of proceedings is not as straightforward.
It is well established that formal procedural steps—such as issuing, filing and serving applications or statements of case—fall squarely within the scope of ‘conducting litigation’. However, a distinction can be made between such formal steps and administrative – ‘purely clerical or mechanical’ – steps. The Court of Appeal addressed this distinction in Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M&E Services UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2865, drawing a clear boundary between assuming legal responsibility for the service of documents (which constitutes the conduct of litigation) and merely carrying out an administrative or mechanical task connected to that service (which does not). The court likened the latter to the role of a process server or postal worker engaged by solicitors to effect service. On that reasoning, routine administrative activities—such as photocopying, preparing bundles, or arranging conferences with counsel—do not amount to the conduct of litigation.
However, the Court of Appeal in Ndole observed that the distinction is ultimately a question of fact and degree in each case, with the focus on the actual role of, and the actual activity undertaken by, the person in question.
The principle was reiterated more recently in Baxter v Doble [2023] EWHC 486 (KB), where the court held that the assessment must consider the entirety of the activities undertaken by the person in question. Individual actions cannot, and should not, be evaluated in isolation when determining whether they amount to the ‘conduct of litigation’.
So what can trainees do?
In our previous article, we questioned whether trainees were limited to research tasks during their contentious seats. However, the central issue was not simply about the nature of the tasks assigned. Rather, it turned on the specific circumstances. The key consideration is whether the task is being carried out by an authorised person with support or assistance, or by a non-authorised person under supervision. This distinction hinges on whether the authorised individual has assumed responsibility for the task and is exercising professional judgment in relation to it.
The Law Society Practice note has provided welcome clarification. It provides that “much of the work involved in litigation can nonetheless be carried out by
non-authorised staff – either as it doesn’t amount to the reserved activity of the conduct of litigation or as it falls within their role assisting an authorised person” and detailed that a non-authorised person i.e., a trainee, can help with litigation to a significant degree, including with activities such as:
Mazur highlights a few high-level factors to take into account such as “the way that important decisions in the case are taken; who drafts or specifically approves formal documents; the degree of direction from the authorised person; evidence as to who is taking specific responsibility for formal steps or, in general terms, who is conducting the case”.
This means that tasks can be delegated so long as there is an authorised person responsible for each matter, who actively supervises the work and the key decisions, and that formal steps in the proceedings are escalated to the authorised person, who exercises their professional judgement in relation to them.
The Law Society has issued guidance clarifying what constitutes the ‘conduct of litigation’, drawing on illustrative examples from case law. Crucially, the guidance distinguishes between formal procedural steps in proceedings and routine administrative or mechanical tasks. Further, it emphasises the need to assess the entirety of the activities undertaken by a person in question, rather than considering them in isolation. The Law Society recommends that clear evidence be maintained on file demonstrating that authorised individuals have exercised their professional responsibility in carrying out the formal steps in connection with proceedings issued before the courts.
The Law Society’s guidance provides welcome confirmation that, within this framework, certain tasks can be delegated to junior fee earners or trainees, provided that supervision and ultimate responsibility remains with the authorised partner or solicitor. This approach safeguards quality and compliance, while offering juniors meaningful opportunities to develop their technical skills. As a partner-led firm, Sinclair Gibson LLP gives clients the advantage of oversight backed by decades of experience.
The full practice note from the Law Society can be read here: https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/regulation/mazur-and-the-conduct-of-litigation?sc_camp=C7F0003414AA4230C6194004E418ACD4
"Sinclair Gibson’s team has the self-belief and the ability to make the bold, difficult advisory decisions others would shy away from. It has a very good team culture, work ethic and consistent delivery."
Chambers HNW 2025
