News

The recent High Court decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has caused a stir in the legal world over the last couple of weeks. It has also prompted firms to renew their scrutiny of the role that trainee solicitors and paralegals play in litigation. So, what tasks can firms legally delegate to trainee solicitors and paralegals during the contentious seats of their training contracts?

The Legal Framework

The Legal Services Act 2007 (the ‘LSA 2007’) sets out that only an authorised person (as defined in Section 18 of the LSA 2007) (or an exempt person) can carry on reserved legal activities (s13(2) of the LSA 2007).

Section 12 of the LSA 2007 defines “reserved legal activity” as including “the conduct of litigation”, which is defined in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the LSA 2007 as:

(a) the issuing of proceedings before any court in England and Wales;

(b) the commencement, prosecution and defence of such proceedings; and

(c) the performance of any ancillary functions in relation to such proceedings (such as entering appearances to actions).

Trainee solicitors and paralegals do not fall into the definition of an authorised person, as they do not hold a practicing certificate issued by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (the ‘SRA’). Nor are they an exempt person, so where does this leave them? Are they relegated to research tasks only in their contentious seats?

The Decision in Mazur

The facts of the case are as follows: Mrs Julia Mazur and Mr Jerome Stuart appealed a court order in a debt recovery claim brought by law firm Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (CRS), which sought £54,263.50 in unpaid legal fees. CRS instructed Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (GBS) to recover the debt. The case was largely handled by Peter Middleton, Head of Commercial Litigation at GBS, who did not hold a practising certificate. Although Mr Middleton was supervised by a qualified solicitor, he took key steps in the litigation process, including signing and filing the claim documents. On appeal, Mr Justice Sheldon ruled that Middleton was not entitled to conduct litigation, even under supervision, and overturned the first instance decision of Judge Simpkiss.

In the appeal, Mr Justice Sheldon considered comments from both the Law Society and the SRA. He confirmed that while non-qualified individuals employed by SRA-regulated firms may assist authorised solicitors, they cannot undertake reserved legal activities themselves unless they fall within pre-2007 permissions or are otherwise specifically exempt.

The Law Society contended that the service of process, preparing bundles and searches are “mechanical functions”, and have never been regarded as ancillary steps amounting to the conduct of litigation. The SRA similarly stated that the key question to ask was whether the person “had assumed responsibility for the conduct of litigation and exercises professional judgement in respect of it.”

The High Court decision has confirmed that the conduct of litigation cannot be delegated to unauthorised employees, even under supervision. However, the judgment did not set out specific working practices or boundaries, leaving ambiguity in its practical application.

Supporting or conducting?

According to the Law Society, whether a person is conducting litigation or merely supporting an authorised solicitor is a question of fact and degree. Indicators may include the way that important decisions in the case are taken, such as: 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.

Taking the example of the service of proceedings, historic case law does not provide clarity on whether this is the conduct of litigation or supporting the conduct of litigation. In Baxter v Doble and another [2023] EWHC 486 (KB), the Law Society made the following submission:

“Depending on the circumstances, the service of proceedings might be a purely mechanical act, or it might amount to the conduct of litigation. In assessing whether a person is conducting litigation, it is necessary to look at each of the individual actions but it may be necessary also to look at the whole series of actions that are undertaken by the person.”

In Mazur, The Law Society also noted that certain tasks, such as preparing bundles, conducting court searches, and serving documents, are mechanical and do not amount to the conduct of litigation. The SRA aligned with this view and stated that the key issue is whether the relevant person has assumed responsibility and exercised professional judgement.

What comes next?

The High Court’s confirmation that conduct of litigation should not be delegated to unauthorised individuals presents practical and commercial challenges. If trainees are restricted from drafting initial versions of court documents, their ability to gain meaningful experience and to develop their technical drafting skills over the course of their training contract becomes more limited. There are also commercial concerns about whether senior fee earners should be spending time/billing on administrative steps, such as the electronic filing of Court documents, that could otherwise be handled in a more cost efficient manner.

The SRA’s initial response to this judgment, published last Wednesday 1 October, has pointed to its 2022 Guidance on ‘effective supervision’, and again emphasised that the boundary between supporting and conducting will depend on the facts. We anticipate that further clarification is likely to be needed to resolve remaining uncertainties around day-to-day practice.

As a partner-led firm, Sinclair Gibson LLP ensures that every matter benefits from close partner involvement and oversight at each stage. The structure endorsed in this recent judgment and supported by other case law is already embedded in day-to-day practice, but it still creates a level of uncertainty causing all law firms to review their working practices. More guidance from the SRA would be much appreciated and it will be interesting to see if a decision is taken to appeal this judgment.

Click here for the full judgment: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2025/2341.html

Click here for the SRA response: https://www.sra.org.uk/news/news/mazur-charles-russell-speechlys/

Click here for the SRA guidance on effective supervision: https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/effective-supervision-guidance/