header-logo header-logo

Conducting litigation: approach with caution

233324
In the wake of Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys, prudence & clear documentation are key, write Kevin Latham & Fraser Barnstaple

The decision of Mr Justice Sheldon in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has sent ripples through the legal profession. By revisiting who can conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007), the judgment challenges long-held assumptions about the role of unauthorised staff in litigation.

But are the impacts of the judgment as widespread and, frankly, catastrophic as first feared by some? We would argue not.

Background facts

The litigation in question was handled almost entirely by Mr Middleton, head of commercial litigation at Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors. Although employed by a regulated firm, he was unqualified. He filed and served proceedings, among 28 other important steps listed in the judgment. The appellants applied for his replacement with a qualified solicitor.

The claim was stayed, and in support of an application to lift the stay the firm filed

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll