header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Delegation v dereliction of duty?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
31 October 2025 / John Gould
Issue: 8137 / Categories: Features , Profession , Regulatory , Legal services
printer mail-detail
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
Slater Heelis—Oliver Banks

Slater Heelis—Oliver Banks

Manchester firm strengthens Court of Protection expertise with partner hire

Talbots Law—Sara Pickerin & Nicholas Playford

Talbots Law—Sara Pickerin & Nicholas Playford

Agricultural law team expands with senior director appointments

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Delegation or dereliction?
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has restated a fundamental truth, writes John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke, in this week's NLJ: only authorised persons can conduct litigation. The decision sparked alarm, but Gould stresses it merely confirms the Legal Services Act 2007
NLJ this week: FCA faces its toughest test yet
The government’s decision to make the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the Single Professional Services Supervisor marks a watershed in the UK’s fight against money laundering, says Rebecca Hughes of Corker Binning in this week's NLJ. The FCA will now oversee 60,000 firms across legal and accountancy sectors—a massive expansion of remit that raises questions over resources and readiness 
NLJ this week: Instructing the right expert
The High Court's decision in Parfitt v Jones [2025] EWHC 1552 (Ch) provided a striking reminder of the need to instruct the right expert in retrospective capacity assessments, says Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Striking back at SLAPPs
Paige Coulter of Quinn Emanuel reports on the UK’s first statutory definition of SLAPPs under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Form N510—not just a box to tick
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold dives into the quirks of civil practice, from the Court of Appeal’s fierce defence of form N510 to fresh reminders about compliance and interest claims, in this week's Civil Way
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll