Answer in 2 sentences:
After Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys, costs are more vulnerable where files read as if unqualified staff conducted litigation. Protect recovery by evidencing an authorised person’s control in time entries, approvals and bill narratives—ring-fencing true admin while defending strategy-linked work.
________________________________________
• Named responsibility: identify the authorised person (solicitor/CL) who takes responsibility for conduct.
• Approvals you can point to: pleadings/applications/Part 36 offers signed or expressly approved by that person.
• Narratives that prove control: time and bill text showing direction/decision-making sat with the authorised person.
• Separation of roles: unqualified staff assist; they don’t conduct. Admin is isolated; strategy stays defended.
________________________________________
Use short, consistent phrases. Replace placeholders.
• Drafting under supervision
Paralegal drafted [document]; reviewed & approved by [Solicitor], who is responsible for litigation conduct.
• Pleadings / formal steps
[Solicitor] settled and approved [Particulars/Application/Witness Statement]; [Solicitor] responsible for filing/strategy.
• Offer strategy
[Solicitor] considered liability/quantum and approved claimant Part 36 terms; paralegal issued under direction.
• Case management
[Solicitor] set negotiation parameters; authorised communications; retained responsibility for conduct.
• Admin ring-fence
Scanning/bundling/service mechanics performed by paralegal (administrative; no strategic content).
________________________________________
• Who signs: statements of case, applications, consent orders and Part 36s are signed/approved by the authorised person.
• How to record: add a one-line approval note to the file or email header:
Approved: [Name], [Role], authorised person conducting litigation (dd/mm/yy hh:mm).
• When delegating: keep delegation task-specific and record that final responsibility remains with the authorised person.
________________________________________
Weave these into Precedent S descriptions and global narratives:
• Direction and responsibility for conduct sat with [Solicitor].
• Paralegal assistance limited to mechanical steps; strategic decisions by [Solicitor].
• Formal documents settled/approved by [Solicitor]; filing under their direction.
• Negotiation positions and movements authorised by [Solicitor]; offers issued accordingly.
Keep entries short; avoid padding. The goal is clarity of responsibility, not volume.
________________________________________
• Pure scanning, pagination, filing, bundle duplication, unproductive waiting not caused by opponent/court, couriering.
• Concede or trim these quickly in Replies; it strengthens your stance on strategy-linked time.
________________________________________
Use plainly and only where true.
• “Unqualified staff conducted litigation”
Denied. [Solicitor], an authorised person, conducted litigation. Drafting assistance was performed by [Paralegal] and expressly approved by [Solicitor], who took responsibility for formal steps, pleadings and strategy. See approval notes and entries on dd/mm/yy.
• “Pleadings were prepared by a paralegal”
Pleadings were drafted to instruction and **settled/approved** by [Solicitor], who signed/authorised filing. Assistance does not amount to ‘conduct’.
• “Global proportionality haircut”
On the standard basis the costs are proportionate to value, risk, complexity and outcome. Administrative items have been ring-fenced; strategic decision-making remained with [Solicitor]. A global haircut is not justified.
________________________________________
• A single responsibility note naming the authorised person for conduct.
• Approval lines for pleadings/applications/offers (dated, attributable).
• Time entries that show who decided/approved, not just who typed.
• Admin segregation: mark mechanical steps as such; avoid strategy wording on admin entries.
• Offer ladder annotated with who authorised movement (and why).
________________________________________
• “Partner-led” with no evidence: add the one-line approvals and responsibility notes.
• “Drafted by X” with no approver: add a post-event approval annotation where appropriate and truthful.
• Admin described as strategy: rewrite entries to reflect mechanics; don’t inflate.
• Unsigned or ambiguous offers: re-issue with clear approval trail if live; explain historic approvals in narrative if closed.
• Send one live file. We’ll draft the Bill/e-Bill and negotiate it to settlement at no cost so you can see exactly how we work. No contract, no minimums.
1) What must my bill show post-Mazur to protect recoverability?
That an authorised person conducted litigation. Name them, show approvals/sign-offs on formal steps (pleadings, applications, Part 36), and use bill narratives/time entries that reflect direction and decisions sitting with that person. Keep assistance by unqualified staff clearly marked as administrative/mechanical.
2) Can a paralegal draft pleadings or offers if a solicitor reviews them?
Yes—assist, not conduct. The authorised person must settle/approve and take responsibility for the step. Record a dated approval note (e.g., “Approved: [Solicitor], authorised person conducting litigation, dd/mm/yy”) and reflect that control in the time entry.
3) How should time entries be worded now?
Use short, consistent phrasing that shows who approved/decided:
“Paralegal drafted [X]; reviewed & approved by [Solicitor], who is responsible for conduct.”
For offers: “[Solicitor] set negotiation parameters and approved claimant Part 36 terms; paralegal issued under direction.”
Ring-fence admin: “Scanning/bundling/service—administrative.”
4) What if historic files don’t show approvals clearly?
Don’t rewrite history, but you can evidence the truth: add a contemporaneous file note that identifies the authorised person’s role and approval where it occurred (supported by email trails or document metadata). In the bill narrative/Replies, explain that drafting was assisted by [Paralegal] and settled/approved by [Solicitor] who conducted the case.
5) What should I concede vs defend in Replies to PoDs?
Concede pure admin (scanning, pagination, duplicate bundling, non-opponent waiting) quickly. Defend strategy-linked work (pleadings, expert coordination, offer strategy, bespoke bundles) by tying each item to orders/breach/outcome and the authorised person’s approval/decision. Resist any global haircut: proportionality is file-specific and justified by value, risk, complexity and outcome.