header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
31 October 2025 / John Gould
Issue: 8137 / Categories: Features , Profession , Regulatory , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Delegation v dereliction of duty?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
234230
Mazur has confirmed what we all knew, says John Gould: some legal services can only be provided by those who are authorised to do so
  • The judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys confirms the law as set out in the Legal Services Act 2007.
  • The key question is how to distinguish between those who are ‘conducting’ a case and those who are only working on it. The person responsible for a particular matter must be an authorised person.
  • Mazur should prompt non-compliant firms to make corrections before they are prosecuted or suffer disciplinary consequences.

From the moment judgment was handed down in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), expressions of alarm have been sounding like klaxons. This is surprising because, as those familiar with the relevant law know, the decision very properly restates the law as it has existed for many years.

The Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007) set out the framework for the regulation of persons who carry out certain legal

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

Read All
Sponsored by
mfg Solicitors—Hayley Pearce & Lauren Williams

mfg Solicitors—Hayley Pearce & Lauren Williams

Law firm mfg Solicitors announces promotions at Ludlow office

Womble Bond Dickinson—Richard Sharpe

Womble Bond Dickinson—Richard Sharpe

Womble Bond Dickinson appoints partner in Leeds residential team

Brabners—six promotions

Brabners—six promotions

Brabners adds six to partnership in record year for partner promotions

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Raising the age bar
Calls to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14 have been renewed, with the Bar Council arguing the current threshold criminalises children too early and risks pushing them towards lifelong offending
NLJ this week: Beyond AI hallucinations
The legal profession's AI challenge extends far beyond fabricated case citations, according to a warning about the next phase of technological risk
NLJ this week: AML supervision shake-up
Law firms should use the transition period before the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) assumes anti-money laundering (AML) supervision to strengthen governance and compliance, experts have warned
NLJ this week: Options for global evidence gathering
Cross-border disputes increasingly demand creative approaches to gathering evidence, with litigators needing to look beyond traditional letters of request
NLJ this week: Indefinite or forever?
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified the distinction between contracts of 'indefinite' and 'perpetual' duration, with potentially significant implications for commercial drafting
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll