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
Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Making Big Tech pay for digital addiction
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
NLJ this week: Leaseholders stuck in limbo
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
NLJ this week: When a trial period becomes a ‘reasonable adjustment’
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
NLJ this week: Ignore covenants at your peril
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
NLJ this week: Courts caught in a ‘hierarchy of privacy’
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll