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
Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll