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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll