Margot Harvey, Senior Legal Analyst
Margot, formerly our Head UK Legal Analyst, is now studying for the Master of Laws (LLM) Solicitor’s Practice Programme at City University of London, aiming to qualify as a solicitor in England & Wales later this year. She focuses on employment, higher education and sexual abuse cases in the UK team.
In September 2025, the High Court’s decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) caused quite a stir within the legal profession. The question in Mazur was whether a non-qualified employee of a law firm, for example, a paralegal, trainee solicitor or an overseas-qualified employee, can conduct litigation under the supervision of a solicitor. The court’s answer was no. While non-qualified employees can assist, only those with authorisation can conduct litigation.
Mazur has criminal, regulatory and costs implications, and may have a big impact on large litigation firms relying on non-qualified staff to carry out day-to-day work under the supervision of a solicitor. The Solicitor’s Regulation Authority (SRA) made submissions in the case, indicating that the key question is who is responsible for and exercising professional judgment, or in other words, who is running the case.
The SRA has made clear that Mazur does not change the law – but it is an important reminder of the limitations of the work of non-qualified legal staff. Some commentators now wonder whether specific tasks must be undertaken by solicitors. The SRA have stated that the boundary between assisting with and conducting litigation depends on the facts, and the onus is on firms to satisfy themselves that they are complying.
Impact on Clients and Costs
One important consequence for clients is how this may impact costs. In civil litigation, the general rule is that the loser pays the winner’s legal costs (with some important exceptions). Solicitors, who generally cost more, may now wish to take over tasks previously handled by paralegals or trainee solicitors, who generally cost less. A cautious approach is required, because there is a risk that costs incurred by non-qualified staff may not be recoverable. Reportedly, courts are already hearing arguments along these lines. The result of this is, the party who winds up paying, is likely to be footing a bigger bill than before. This could have a broader impact on access to justice, for those already struggling to fund legal fees.
The consequences of Mazur for the legal sector remain to be seen. As the Law Society emphasises, it is in the public interest that only those authorised to conduct litigation do so. Firms will need to assess their approaches carefully to balance this important principle, and the need to ensure rates remain affordable.
If you need guidance on bringing a civil claim, please contact our team to book a no-cost initial consultation.