On 16 September 2025, Mr Justice Sheldon handed down judgment in Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). The decision sent a shockwave through firms that depend on litigation executives, paralegals and Chartered Legal Executives for day-to-day case handling.
Now, on 18 November 2025, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) has applied for permission to appeal the Mazur decision to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the ruling is causing real-world damage to firms, lawyers and clients. (Local Government Lawyer)
For solicitors’ firms running high-volume housing disrepair, PI, credit hire or debt work, this is not abstract theory. It goes directly to:
• who can lawfully “conduct litigation” on your files;
• whether your current fee-earner structure is compliant; and
• ultimately, whether your costs are at risk of challenge.
This post walks through the key points – and what you should be doing now.
________________________________________
In Mazur, Charles Russell Speechlys instructed another firm, Goldsmith Bowers, to recover unpaid fees of about £54,000 from former clients Julia Mazur and Jerome Stuart. The work was largely done by a “Senior Litigation Executive” and “Head of Litigation” who did not hold a practising certificate or independent right to conduct litigation. (Aviva)
The High Court held, in clear terms, that:
• The conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007).
• A non-authorised employee cannot conduct litigation merely by being employed by, or supervised within, an authorised law firm.
• Section 21(3) LSA 2007 does not create a blanket authorisation for all employees – reserved acts must be done by a person who is individually authorised or exempt.
The judgment re-emphasised a key principle:
The right to conduct litigation attaches to the individual, not the firm.
An unauthorised person can support a solicitor in conducting litigation – e.g. drafting at their direction, preparing bundles – but cannot themselves be the person who issues, prosecutes or defends proceedings, signs key documents or takes the conduct decisions.
For many firms, that position cut across years of regulatory messaging and common practice.
________________________________________
CILEX represents CILEX Lawyers, Chartered Legal Executives, paralegals and other legal professionals. In its public statements, it has been blunt: Mazur has had “serious concerns” for the sector.
According to CILEX and recent coverage:
• Many Chartered Legal Executives believed that, although they did not have the independent right to conduct litigation, they could do so under the supervision of a solicitor. Mazur says they cannot. (Local Government Lawyer)
• The ruling has allegedly led to job losses, with some legal executives and paralegals sidelined from roles they have performed for years.
• Firms and other organisations have had to change business models at short notice, at “considerable cost”, potentially affecting competitiveness and speed of service.
• CILEX also points to delays in the courts, as judges query the status of those appearing before them, and to satellite litigation over costs.
Crucially, CILEX:
• was not a party to the original proceedings;
• is asking the Court of Appeal to exercise its discretion to allow an appeal by a body “adversely affected” by the judgment; and
• says it is not trying to change the outcome of Mazur on costs, but to address the principle and the uncertainty now facing the profession.
CILEX is being represented pro bono by Nick Bacon KC, with regulatory specialists Iain Miller and Stephen Nelson of Kingsley Napley – an indication of how seriously the profession is taking this.
________________________________________
Even before any appeal, firms are having to redraw the line between conducting litigation and supporting it.
Regulator and practice-risk commentary since Mazur has stressed that:
• Reserved “conduct of litigation” is likely to include:
o issuing and defending proceedings;
o signing or certifying statements of case and key court documents;
o making decisions on strategy, admissions, amendments, discontinuance;
o corresponding with the court as the litigator;
o exercising professional judgment about the conduct of the case.
• Support (which can be done by unauthorised staff) may include:
o drafting documents for approval by an authorised person;
o managing disclosure bundles and evidence;
o arranging expert appointments, chasing clients, organising inspections;
o preparing chronologies, schedules, draft directions for sign-off.
The facts are always case- and role-sensitive. But if an individual is, in substance, “running the file” in court proceedings and is not authorised, you now have:
• a regulatory risk (potential breach of the LSA 2007); and
• a costs risk (arguments that parts of the work were unlawfully conducted and/or not properly recoverable).
For volume litigation – housing disrepair, low- to mid-value PI, credit hire, debt – this risk is multiplied across dozens or hundreds of live files.
________________________________________
The Mazur decision itself was about whether certain costs should be payable and whether the person conducting the litigation was authorised. That alone should make costs teams and COLPs twitchy. (Lockton)
From a costs perspective, there are a few immediate themes:
1. Challenges to the recoverability of time
Opponents may argue that work done by an unauthorised person “conducting litigation” was unlawful and should not be recoverable, or at least not at the rate claimed.
2. Satellite arguments at detailed assessment
Expect more points of dispute probing who did what on the file, under what authority, and whether particular steps amount to conduct of litigation.
3. Scrutiny of delegation and supervision
Bills that reveal heavily paralegal- or exec-driven conduct, with minimal identifiable involvement by an authorised person at key stages, may attract sharper judicial and opponent scrutiny.
4. Risk uplifts for indemnity and PII
Insurers and brokers are already issuing risk briefings. The more non-authorised people are “front-facing” on litigation steps, the more questions you may face at renewal. (Lockton)
________________________________________
Appeal or no appeal, firms really cannot sit on their hands. Here’s a practical starting checklist:
1. Map roles against reserved activities
o Identify which fee-earners are individually authorised to conduct litigation (solicitors, CILEX practitioners with rights, others).
o Map which tasks on a typical file amount to “conduct” vs “support”.
2. Review who signs what
o Check who is signing N1s, particulars, defences, consent orders, Tomlin orders and key applications.
o If unauthorised people are signing, that needs urgent review.
3. Document supervision and decision-making
o Ensure that authorised persons are plainly taking and recording the decisions about litigation conduct, not merely rubber-stamping.
4. Update case-handling protocols
o For HDR/PI/volume teams, update workflow charts and precedent instructions so it is clear what must be escalated to a solicitor.
5. Align your time recording and narratives
o Time entries and bills should reflect reality: who exercised judgment, who drafted for approval, who dealt with the court.
o Vague “file management” narratives won’t cut it in a Mazur-aware world.
6. Train your teams
o Paralegals and Chartered Legal Executives need clarity, not panic. Short, focused training on “what you can do / must escalate” will help.
________________________________________
CILEX’s application does not suspend the effect of Mazur. The law, as declared by the High Court, remains in force unless and until the Court of Appeal says otherwise.
CILEX is asking the Court to:
• allow it to appeal as a body adversely affected; and
• revisit whether the LSA 2007 and surrounding framework should be read in such a restrictive way, given long-standing professional practice and previous regulatory guidance.
There are a few realistic scenarios:
• Permission refused – Mazur stands as-is; regulators may tinker at the edges with guidance, but the core position remains.
• Permission granted but appeal dismissed – more authoritative confirmation of the current restrictive view.
• Appeal allowed (in whole or part) – CoA may adopt a more nuanced approach to what counts as “conduct of litigation”, or to the role of supervised, non-authorised staff.
Whatever the outcome, firms that have already taken stock, updated workflows and cleaned up their time-recording and delegation will be in a far stronger position – both regulatory and costs-wise.
________________________________________
For firms running large numbers of housing disrepair, personal injury, credit hire or similar cases, Mazur and the CILEX appeal are not just regulatory curiosities – they’re operational and financial issues.
DMD Costs can help you to:
• Audit your costs process through a Mazur lens
Review sample files and bills to see where “conduct of litigation” is being done, and by whom, and where this might be exposed on assessment.
• Refine time-recording and narrative styles
Adjust how work is described so it properly reflects supervised drafting vs authorised decision-making, reducing scope for opportunistic challenges.
• Support with strategic arguments on assessment
If you’re already facing Mazur-flavoured Points of Dispute, we can help craft robust replies and settlement strategies.
• Design a compliant, efficient delegation model
Keep your litigation executives and paralegals doing as much as they lawfully can, while ensuring authorised litigators are clearly taking the “reserved” steps.
If you’d like to sense-check how exposed your current model is – or want help building a Mazur-proof approach to costs – get in touch with the team at info@dmdcosts.co.uk or via dmdcosts.co.uk.
________________________________________
Does Mazur mean we have to stop using paralegals altogether?
No. A huge amount of work on a case does not amount to conduct of litigation and can still be delegated – provided authorised litigators make the key decisions and sign the reserved documents.
Can an unauthorised fee-earner ever sign court documents?
It depends what the document is and in what capacity. Mazur and regulator guidance suggest that where the document is part of the “issue, prosecution or defence” of proceedings, or involves professional judgment on conduct, it should be signed by an authorised person.
Will CILEX’s appeal change anything overnight?
Not immediately. Until the Court of Appeal rules, firms should work on the basis that Mazur is correct and live, while sensibly monitoring developments and adjusting if the appellate court takes a different view.