Thursday, 16 October 2025
A recent High Court ruling has prompted widespread discussion in the legal profession about who is legally permitted to carry out litigation work within law firms. The case, Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, decided in mid-September 2025, found that non-qualified employees may assist with litigation but cannot themselves perform activities reserved exclusively for authorised legal professionals.
The dispute centred on whether a non-lawyer staff member within a regulated firm could legally undertake actions connected to managing court proceedings. The judgment clarified that employment by a regulated firm does not in itself grant the right to conduct litigation, a function that remains reserved to those holding specific professional authorisation under the UK’s Legal Services Act.
Legal observers say the decision has immediate implications for firms that rely heavily on paralegals, legal executives, or other non-qualified staff in high-volume practice areas such as personal injury, insurance, or consumer claims. Many of these businesses had assumed that employees could act under the firm’s authorisation provided adequate supervision was in place. The court’s interpretation, however, restricts that assumption, reinforcing that only authorised individuals can directly handle the procedural steps defined as litigation conduct.
Professional bodies and regulators have responded cautiously, with the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Services Board both acknowledging the need to review how firms structure supervision and delegation. The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, whose members are among those most affected, has signalled it may seek reform to expand or clarify its members’ rights in this area.
For law firms, the ruling means revisiting internal compliance systems and ensuring that clear boundaries exist between staff permitted to conduct litigation and those limited to supporting roles. Insurance advisers also note that professional indemnity policies may need reassessment, particularly for firms engaged in bulk litigation, where non-lawyer staff often manage large caseloads.
Although the case was decided in England and Wales, its reasoning underscores broader questions facing the modern legal services sector: how to balance operational efficiency with the strict regulatory framework that defines who may carry out core legal functions. For now, firms are being urged to review their procedures and ensure that day-to-day practices remain aligned with the law’s reserved-activity rules.
Source: CMS
