The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP landed at a moment when UK law firms were increasingly relying on paralegals and legal assistants to manage more of the caseload. For some, this blurred the line around who is authorised to conduct litigation.
The High Court ruling clarified this by strictly defining who may perform reserved legal activities, making compliance obligations immediate and reshaping hiring priorities. But with the Court of Appeal now handing down its judgment, the picture has changed.
At Achieve Professionals, we specialise in legal recruitment across the UK and globally, placing solicitors, paralegals, legal executives, and senior legal leaders into law firms and in-house teams. We’re already seeing how this decision is influencing recruitment conversations, and we’re helping firms navigate the shift.
Update: Court of Appeal Decision (31st March 2026)
The Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court decision ([2026] EWCA Civ 369). The judgment confirms that non-authorised staff, including paralegals, can perform litigation tasks, provided a qualified solicitor or authorised CILEX member retains full responsibility and supervision.
Lord Justice Birss summarised the position (paragraph 187):
“An unauthorised person may lawfully perform any tasks… within the scope of the conduct of litigation… provided the authorised individual retains responsibility…”
Key implications for law firms:
- Existing litigation team structures remain valid
- Paralegals and other non-qualified fee earners can continue to play a key role
- Supervision, not restriction is the critical factor
This judgment resolves the uncertainty created by the High Court and provides practical clarity for hiring, team structure, and compliance.
What the Mazur Case Clarifies?
Even with the Court of Appeal decision, some core principles remain vital:
1. Conduct of Litigation is a Reserved Legal Activity
Under the Legal Services Act 2007, the conduct of litigation can only be carried out by authorised individuals:
- Qualified solicitors holding a valid practising certificate
- Barristers
- Chartered Legal Executives who hold the appropriate litigation practice rights (not all CILEX Fellows are automatically authorised to conduct litigation)
Mazur reinforces that this must be applied strictly, without exception. Delegation is lawful but accountability cannot be transferred.
2. Employment at a Law Firm Does not grant Litigation Rights
Working within an authorised firm does not give an individual the right to conduct litigation. Supervision and responsibility by an authorised person is required.
3. Supervision Allows Delegation (Court of Appeal Clarification)
Under the High Court, supervision did not permit non-authorised work. The Court of Appeal has clarified that tasks may be delegated lawfully, so long as the authorised individual retains responsibility and oversight..
4. What Counts as “Conduct of Litigation”?
Activities such as issuing proceedings, signing statements of case, and filing documents remain reserved. Non-authorised staff can assist through drafting, research, case preparation, and other supportive work – under supervision.
5. Risks of Non-Compliance
Firms that get this wrong face serious consequences. Non-compliance is not just a regulatory matter.
Critical: An unqualified person who conducts litigation without supervision commits a criminal offence under the LSA 2007, as does their employer, even if the firm itself is authorised and regulated.
Additional consequences include:
- Adverse costs orders in proceedings
- Professional negligence claims
- Regulatory action from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)
What This Means for Legal Recruitment
The Mazur ruling isn’t just a compliance story. It’s a talent story.
Increased Demand for Qualified Litigators
With responsibility remaining with authorised individuals, firms continue to need enough qualified litigators to manage caseloads. This has led to:
- Higher headcount in litigation teams
- Competitive salaries and benefits
- Broader hiring criteria, including newly qualified (NQ) solicitors
A Redefined Role for Paralegals
Paralegals are not sidelined, they are integral to litigation teams, but their roles are now more structured. The Court of Appeal ruling allows delegation under supervision, confirming that paralegals can continue contributing meaningfully without breaching regulations.
Greater Investment in Talent Development
Firms are increasingly likely to support employees through SQE qualification routes, invest in internal training, and offer clearer progression pathways from paralegal to qualified lawyer. It’s a conversation we’re having regularly with candidates across our legal network.
Understanding the law firm hierarchy in the UK and where different roles sit within it has never been more relevant for firms and candidates navigating these changes.
Final Thoughts
The Mazur case is less about creating new law and more about clarifying accountability in litigation practice. The Court of Appeal has restored practical flexibility while ensuring responsibility remains firmly with authorised individuals.
For law firms and legal professionals, this means:
- Leveraged litigation teams are safe and lawful, under proper supervision
- Paralegal and non-qualified roles can continue to support litigation work
- Compliance remains non-negotiable, but delegation is now clearly permitted
At Achieve Professionals, we’re helping firms navigate these changes, from hiring qualified litigators to structuring paralegal teams for maximum efficiency and compliance.
Whether you’re a firm adapting your hiring strategy or a candidate exploring your next move in this new environment, we’re here to help.
Get in touch with our legal recruitment team to discuss your next hire or your next move.
FAQs
No. It clarifies how the Legal Services Act 2007 is applied in practice rather than introducing new legislation.
Yes, under the Court of Appeal judgment, non-authorised staff may perform litigation tasks as long as the authorised individual retains responsibility and supervision.
Non-compliance can result in adverse costs orders, professional negligence claims, and regulatory action from the SRA.
Firms are increasing demand for qualified litigators, offering more competitive packages, and defining paralegal roles more clearly. Delegation under supervision is now explicitly lawful, giving teams more flexibility.
Sources
- Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), High Court (King’s Bench Division), Sheldon J, 16 September 2025
- Court of Appeal proceedings, claim number CA-2025-002754, heard 20–26 February 2026; judgment reserved. Listing record via judiciary.uk
- Legal Services Act 2007
- Solicitors Regulation Authority
- As it happened: Mazur judgment – CILEX wins appeal, The Law Gazette (March 31, 2026).
