header-logo header-logo

24 October 2025
Issue: 8136 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Profession , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Approach with caution post-Mazur

233324
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?

The High Court has ruled that unqualified employees cannot perform ‘conduct of litigation’—even under supervision—because the Legal Services Act 2007 allows only authorised persons to take formal steps such as issuing or serving proceedings. The judgment could prompt objections to work done by unauthorised fee-earners and challenges to costs recovery. Firms must now show clear supervision records proving an authorised lawyer retained control.

The authors urge immediate reviews of delegation practices and careful documentation, predicting further litigation to clarify the limits. Their message: prudence, paperwork and authorised oversight are now essential safeguards.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll