In Mazur [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), Mr Justice Sheldon held that a fee-earner who is not a qualified solicitor does not have the right to conduct litigation, even when under the supervision of a qualified solicitor.
The judgment, handed down last month, has raised concerns about the correct roles of paralegals and CILEX lawyers and the boundaries between supporting and conducting litigation. In particular, it created uncertainty about large-scale litigation where the bulk of the work may be delegated to paralegals. Moreover, could parties now challenge decisions or costs rulings on the basis of Mazur?
Issuing its response this week, the SRA said Mazur ‘doesn't change the position in law’.
‘There is a distinction between conducting litigation and supporting litigation, but the boundary between the two activities will depend on the facts. Being engaged (whether as an employee or other contractor) by an authorised person who is permitted to conduct reserved activities does not automatically confer a right to conduct litigation on an employee or contractor who is not authorised… The onus is on firms to satisfy themselves that they are complying.’
NLJ columnist, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School said: ‘The consequences are horrific for able, experienced people and their employers.
‘Overnight, they have been demoted to the role of a mere cipher. Legal Executives represent very good value as their charge-out rates are modest. A consequence of the judgment is that it will inflate legal costs in an era when access to justice at a fair price is supposedly paramount.
‘It is important to note that Sheldon J at para [76] held that the matter has been rectified and there was no abuse of process so that the claim for unpaid fees could properly proceed to trial. If this is not resolved soon—and I struggle to see a quick fix—the next stop might just be a leapfrog to the Supreme Court if it were prepared to entertain a challenge.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b21f1aaf_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=754d0e82_1)
