Answer in 2 sentences (snippet-bait):
The High Court held that unqualified staff may assist but cannot conduct litigation—even under a solicitor’s supervision; it also set aside a county court costs order and made no order as to costs on appeal. Given the nationwide operational and compliance shock this has created, the profession needs Court of Appeal guidance to define the boundary between assistance and conduct, to avoid criminalisation risks, and to provide workable, prospective rules for firms, in-house teams and courts. Legal Futures
________________________________________
• The court aligned with the Legal Services Act 2007 and SRA/Law Society view: only an authorised person may conduct litigation; unqualified employees can support but not conduct, even under general supervision. Law Society
• The judge emphasised a “substance, not form” / fact-and-degree test—labels like “partner-led” don’t save a model where unauthorised staff are functionally conducting litigation. Beale & Co
• A prior county court £10,653 costs order related to the stay being lifted was set aside, with no order as to costs on appeal. ICLG Business Reports
Profession and risk commentators call the ruling a “bomb” with potential for nationwide disruption. Legal Futures
________________________________________
Mazur’s fact-and-degree approach tells firms what not to do only in the abstract. With criminal offences attached to reserved activities, the boundary must be bright and operationally clear. Today, two reasonable regulators could draw the line differently on the same file. An appeal could set safe harbours (e.g., who may sign/file statements of case; who may take responsibility for formal steps) and calibrate what “general supervision” can and cannot cover. Beale & Co
Large firms, local authorities and bulk-litigation centres have long used litigation executives/paralegals under tight supervision. Post-Mazur, insurers and risk teams warn of seismic operational change—but the ruling offers no transitional relief or prospective effect to avoid retrospective non-compliance anxiety. An appeal could secure prospective clarity and protect historic work done in good faith under the SRA’s supervision framework. Howden Group
Mazur stresses individual authorisation; mere employment by an authorised body doesn’t confer the right to conduct litigation. That’s doctrinally orthodox under the LSA 2007—but modern practice has blurred roles (overseas-qualified, in-house, secondees). The Court of Appeal could reconcile entity regulation, effective supervision, and reserved activity boundaries in a way that preserves consumer protection without freezing legitimate team-based delivery. Local Government Lawyer
The High Court set aside a costs order, but did not build a comprehensive framework for entitlement and recoverability where unauthorised staff have taken steps. Without appellate guidance, expect satellite costs litigation over entitlement, wasted costs, and the status of work performed pre-Mazur. The Court of Appeal could set proportionate remedies, avoiding windfalls and providing clear directions for CPR-consistent outcomes. ICLG Business Reports
Rigid readings could choke lower-value or bulk claims that rely on supervised caseworkers—raising access to justice issues where the only “safe” model is a fully qualified fee-earner for tasks historically done under effective supervision. Appellate guidance can protect consumers while preserving cost-effective delivery models that the SRA itself encourages—so long as the reserved core remains with the solicitor. Law Society
________________________________________
• Name the conductor. Record, per file, the authorised person who takes responsibility for litigation conduct and approves/signs formal steps. Law Society
• Retool supervision notes. “Partner-led” isn’t enough—minute decisions, approvals, and responsibility trails; remove any suggestion that an unqualified person conducted litigation. Beale & Co
• Re-allocate signatures/filings. Statements of case, applications and formal steps should be signed/approved by the named authorised person with explicit wording. Law Society
• Update retainers/letters. Explain who conducts litigation and who assists.
• Audit historic risk. Triage matters where non-qualified staff took formal steps; plan curative actions and prepare to answer case-specific challenges flagged by opponents and costs judges. Profession-wide guidance calls this out as urgent. Legal Futures
________________________________________
Even if Mazur’s consumer-protection instinct is right, firms need operationally certain rules. The Court of Appeal should confirm:
• a workable test with example lists of reserved vs assistant tasks;
• signature/filing and responsibility safe harbours under supervision;
• prospective effect (or transitional relief) to avoid retrospective criminal/regulatory jeopardy;
• costs consequences that are principled and proportionate.
Until then, expect paying parties to run entitlement and recoverability points whenever files read as if unqualified staff were running the case. That is precisely why appellate clarity is necessary. 4newsquare.com
________________________________________
We’ll draft & negotiate your first HDR or MOD NIHL bill to settlement for free.
If you’re happy, it’s £500 all-in per file thereafter (drafting + negotiations + settlement paperwork). 5-day SLA. Costs drafting specialists.