High Court ruling redefines roles of unqualified staff in litigation, prompting legal compliance overhaul

A recent High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP has challenged longstanding practices, restricting unqualified employees from conducting litigation and forcing UK law firms to overhaul supervision and compliance frameworks amid industry-wide concerns over operational and access to justice implications.

Last week’s High Court ruling in the case of Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP has sent shockwaves through the English legal profession, with concerns mounting over the operational and compliance ramifications for firms engaged in litigation. The court held firmly that unqualified employees of law firms may support solicitors in conducting litigation but are not permitted to conduct litigation themselves, even under a solicitor’s supervision. This represents a significant departure from longstanding practices, particularly in high-volume or bulk litigation firms where non-admitted staff have often played active roles in case handling.

Mr Justice Sheldon’s judgment clarifies that while solicitors can be supported by unqualified personnel, the act of conducting litigation is strictly reserved for qualified, authorised legal professionals. The ruling sparked alarm about potential widespread disruption, with industry experts warning law firms to urgently reassess how they supervise and document the conduct of litigation. Paul Bennett, a solicitor advocate involved in the case but speaking in a personal capacity, emphasised that the decision raises a new compliance imperative. Firms must now provide clear evidence of who is undertaking which tasks within litigation teams, particularly in firms heavily reliant on non-admitted staff such as alternative business structures serving volume litigation markets.

Critics have highlighted that this judgment could lead to significant practical consequences. Stephen Lund, chief executive of housing litigation specialist Antony Hodari, expressed concern over the regulator’s silence, pointing out that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) had yet to issue guidance despite the judgment’s potential to cause “nationwide disruption.” He warned of wasted costs for solicitors and courts, increased delays for claimants and defendants, and heightened anxiety among legal professionals about their roles and futures.

Andrew Hogan, a costs barrister, described the ruling as “detonating like a bomb over the profession.” He noted that firms relying on unauthorised personnel to manage litigation steps—such as issuing pleadings or engaging with courts—might now face both operational upheaval and legal challenges. Disputes could arise over the validity of procedural acts taken by unqualified staff in past cases, and opponents in litigation might resist paying costs associated with unauthorised conduct. Hogan fears that unless delegation of tasks is properly structured, costs and complexity could substantially increase.

The decision also touches on broader access to justice concerns. Iain Miller, a regulatory partner and legal services expert, noted that tighter restrictions on the roles non-authorised individuals can play will likely increase litigation costs and constrain firms’ supervisory models. He pointed out that unlike probate or conveyancing—where the Legal Services Act expressly allows non-admitted persons to conduct reserved activities under regulated supervision—no such exemption exists for litigation, complicating compliance for firms.

Within law firms, questions have arisen around training models for aspiring solicitors. Mark Aspin, a head of dispute resolution, reflected on how trainee solicitors and apprentices have traditionally been given their own cases to manage under close supervision as part of their learning process. The ruling, however, may now prohibit this approach, as even closely supervised involvement is deemed to be “conducting litigation.” His comments underline the tension between regulatory compliance and professional development pathways.

Regulatory and professional bodies are anticipated to respond soon. The SRA acknowledged it is reviewing the judgment, but has yet to offer detailed guidance. Legal commentators suggest that clear, authoritative directions from the regulator will be essential to help firms navigate these complex waters.

This ruling, by reaffirming a strict interpretation of the Legal Services Act 2007, has forced the profession to confront the fine line between support roles and litigation conduct. It compels law firms to thoroughly document and possibly re-engineer their supervision structures to ensure compliance and mitigate risks. At the same time, it raises important questions about the future of litigation workflows, the cost implications for clients, and the ongoing challenge of maintaining access to justice in a regulated environment.

📌 Reference Map:

Source: Noah Wire Services

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score:
10

Notes:
The narrative is based on a recent High Court ruling in the case of Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, dated 22 September 2025. ([legalfutures.co.uk](https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/alarm-over-high-court-bomb-on-conduct-of-litigation?utm_source=openai))

Quotes check

Score:
10

Notes:
The direct quotes from Paul Bennett, Stephen Lund, and Andrew Hogan are unique to this report and do not appear in earlier material.

Source reliability

Score:
10

Notes:
The narrative originates from Legal Futures, a reputable UK legal news outlet known for its in-depth coverage of legal developments.

Plausability check

Score:
10

Notes:
The claims made in the narrative are consistent with the recent High Court ruling and are corroborated by other reputable sources, including ICLG. ([iclg.com](https://iclg.com/news/23081-high-court-overturns-costs-order-over-unauthorised-litigation-conduct?utm_source=openai))

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH

Summary:
The narrative is fresh, original, and sourced from a reputable outlet. The claims are plausible and supported by recent legal developments, with no signs of disinformation.