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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll