Julia Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP & Ors

In the context of reserved legal activities, conduct of litigation identifies the litigation tasks, while carry on refers to directing, controlling and taking responsibility for those tasks. An unauthorised person may perform tasks within the conduct of litigation for and on behalf of an authorised individual, provided the authorised individual retains formal and professional responsibility and establishes appropriate supervision and delegation arrangements. The Legal Services Act 2007 does not require prior approval of every step. The necessary degree of supervision depends on the circumstances. The distinction between assisting an authorised person and conducting litigation under supervision is therefore unsound. Ndole and Baxter concern unauthorised persons acting for litigants in person and do not prohibit delegation by authorised individuals.

The proceedings arose from a claim by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP for unpaid legal fees. The claim was issued through Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors by Mr Middleton, who was not an authorised individual under the Legal Services Act 2007. A deputy district judge stayed the claim, and HHJ Simpkiss later lifted the stay after evidence was provided that a practising solicitor, Mr Ashall, had conduct of the litigation and supervised Mr Middleton.

On appeal, Mr Justice Sheldon held that an unauthorised person could assist an authorised solicitor but could not conduct litigation under that solicitor’s supervision. CILEX appealed, supported by interveners. The central questions were whether supervised delegation was lawful, what acts constituted conducting litigation, and whether the law-centre model contravened the 2007 Act.

Sir Colin Birss gave the leading judgment. Lady Justice Andrews agreed, and the Master of the Rolls agreed with both judgments. The appeal was allowed.

1. Statutory context. The offence in section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007 was to be construed narrowly because of its penal consequences. The 2007 Act did not significantly alter the position under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The established and regulated practice of solicitors delegating litigation work to unqualified staff was relevant. Delegation did not remove the solicitor’s professional responsibility.
2. Meaning of the statutory language. The conduct of litigation comprises the tasks identified in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2. The words carry on refer to direction, control and responsibility for those tasks. They do not simply mean doing the acts, and conduct of litigation does not itself import responsibility for the litigation as a whole.
3. Delegation. An unauthorised person may perform any task within the conduct of litigation for and on behalf of an authorised individual who has power to delegate. The authorised individual remains responsible for the task, including the professional responsibilities in section 1(3). The unauthorised person is not thereby carrying on a reserved legal activity and does not commit the section 14 offence.
4. Supervision. Delegation requires appropriate direction, management, supervision and control. The intensity of supervision depends on the circumstances. Prior approval of every document or step is unnecessary. In routine cases, regular meetings and sampling may suffice, although closer control may be required in other cases.
5. Authorities and scope. Ndole Assets v Designer M&E Services and Baxter v Doble address unauthorised persons acting for litigants in person who have no power to delegate. They apply a fact-and-degree assessment of whether the person assumed responsibility rather than performing a mechanical or administrative function. Baxter was not wrongly decided, but did not establish a wider list of litigation tasks.
6. Further issues. The court could not give an exhaustive definition of all tasks within the statutory expression. Issuing proceedings and formal ancillary steps fall within it. Several activities, including pre-litigation work, legal advice, correspondence, evidence gathering and instructing experts or counsel, were unlikely to do so. The law-centre model was governed by the same delegation principles, so no separate determination under section 23 or of Khan was required.

The distinction drawn by the judge between assistance and supervised conduct was set aside. The underlying fee proceedings had been compromised.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2026] EWCA Civ 369. Allowed CILEX’s appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Sheldon.
• King’s Bench Division: Mr Justice Sheldon, [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). Allowed the appeal from HHJ Simpkiss and held that an unauthorised person could assist an authorised solicitor but could not conduct litigation under supervision.
• County Court: HHJ Simpkiss lifted the stay imposed by DDJ Campbell and awarded costs to Charles Russell Speechlys LLP.
• County Court: DDJ Campbell stayed the fee claim and required evidence from Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors concerning the role of its unauthorised employee.