Mazur Appeal: A Defining Moment for Litigation Rights

The much-watched case of Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys is now before the Court of Appeal and the stakes could not be higher.

At its core lies a fundamental question: Can legal executives and senior paralegals conduct litigation simply because they are employed within an authorised firm?

Last September, Mr Justice Sheldon held that they may not. His reasoning turned on the statutory framework for reserved legal activities. He concluded that the right to conduct litigation attaches to authorised individuals, not to firms in the abstract. Employment within an authorised practice does not, by itself, confer the right to carry out a reserved activity on someone who is not independently authorised.

The judgment emphasised regulatory clarity and individual accountability. If litigation is reserved, the person conducting it must personally hold the relevant authorisation. Non‑authorised team members can support the process, but the formal conduct of litigation must remain with an authorised individual.

For firms, the implications are considerable. Many operate leveraged models where legal executives and senior paralegals perform substantial litigation work under supervision. If the judgment stands, firms may need to restructure supervision frameworks, reallocate responsibilities, and increase authorised headcount.

We will continue to monitor developments closely and provide further updates as the appeal progresses.