A recent High Court ruling in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has triggered a wave of confusion and concern across the legal sector by clarifying that while non-qualified staff can support litigation, they cannot carry it out themselves, even under supervision.
CRS instructed Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors to recover a debt from clients Julia Mazur and Jerome Stuart. However, the particulars of claim, a key court document, were signed by Peter Middleton, the firm’s head of commercial litigation, who has not practised as a solicitor since his suspension in 2008.
Mazur and Stuart challenged the legitimacy of the claim, arguing Middleton was not legally permitted to conduct litigation. Subsequently, by interpreting the Legal Services Act 2007 and its rules around “reserved legal activities”, the High Court ruled that only qualified solicitors can conduct litigation, not unauthorised persons, even while employed by an authorised firm. This highlighted how even the SRA has misunderstood the rules on what unqualified staff can carry out, first, by failing to question Middleton’s role and second, by telling SQE candidates that they can gain qualifying experience through work involving reserved legal activities. Additionally, until 2023, CILEX told its members they could conduct litigation if employed by a law firm, despite not being authorised under the Legal Services Act.
As a result, the implications of the decision are serious. Many firms rely on paralegals to manage caseloads under supervision, particularly in debt recovery, personal injury and conveyancing sectors. However, such tasks may now need to be undertaken by qualified solicitors, potentially increasing operational costs and reducing efficiency. Clients may also be reluctant to accept higher fees for work previously completed by paralegals at a lower cost. Since the ruling, some losing parties have also argued that firms should be disallowed from recovering legal costs on the basis that unqualified paralegals unlawfully conducted litigation. Moreover, the decision increases the risk of dissatisfied clients challenging past cases, resulting in reputational harm and additional costs for firms, even if such claims fail. Finally, the SRA may review matters in which paralegals performed reserved legal work. Although enforcement may be difficult, the risk of regulatory action remains significant as unauthorised conduct of litigation could constitute contempt of court or even a criminal offence.
Overall, the judgment provides legal clarity but highlights ongoing practical uncertainty. Law firms must now reconsider the role of paralegals, their approaches to cost recovery and the boundaries between delegated tasks and professional responsibility.
Written by Jemima Lines
Edited by Olivia Eliadou
Sources – The Law Society, The Law Society Gazette, Little Law
Mazur v CRS Triggers Confusion over Non-Qualified Staff
•
