The Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys, providing long-awaited clarity on the scope of the “conduct of litigation” under the Legal Services Act 2007.
Background
The case arose from a challenge to whether certain litigation tasks carried out by individuals who were not authorised to conduct litigation, such as paralegals or fee earners without practising certificates, fell within the statutory definition of “conduct of litigation”.
At first instance, the High Court adopted a restrictive interpretation, suggesting that only those formally authorised could carry out core litigation functions, with others limited to a narrow supporting role.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
The Court of Appeal overturned that approach, confirming that litigation is, in practice, a team-based activity. It held that tasks forming part of the conduct of litigation may be carried out by non-authorised individuals, provided that they are properly supervised by an authorised person, such as a solicitor or authorised CILEX member.
Crucially, the court emphasised that it is the authorised lawyer who must retain control and responsibility for the case. The statutory prohibition is therefore directed at those who purport to conduct litigation independently without authorisation – not at those working under appropriate supervision.
Key Takeaways
- Delegation is permitted: Routine and substantive litigation tasks can be delegated within legal teams.
- Supervision is essential: Work must be carried out under the oversight of an authorised lawyer.
- Responsibility remains with the authorised individual: Accountability cannot be delegated.
- A practical interpretation prevails: The court recognised the realities of modern legal practice.
Why This Matters
The decision will be welcomed by law firms and legal service providers alike. It preserves established working practices, where litigation is delivered by teams comprising individuals with varying levels of qualification and experience.
Had the High Court’s narrower interpretation been upheld, it could have had significant implications for the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of legal services, potentially restricting the ability of firms to allocate work appropriately.
Looking Ahead
While the judgment provides helpful clarification, it stops short of defining rigid boundaries for what tasks may or may not be delegated. Firms should therefore continue to ensure that robust supervision structures are in place and that authorised lawyers maintain genuine oversight of all litigation matters.
This decision represents a pragmatic and commercially realistic interpretation of the statutory framework, reinforcing the principle that while legal work can be shared, professional responsibility ultimately rests with those authorised to conduct litigation.