Mazur Appeal: Clarification for Litigation Practice 

The decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP has attracted significant attention across the profession, and for good reason. It addresses an issue at the heart of modern litigation practice: how far non-authorised staff can be involved in litigation work, and where the line is drawn between delegated tasks and the conduct of litigation itself. 

For law firms, the Court of Appeal’s ruling is an important reminder that litigation is often delivered through teams, not individuals acting in isolation. The judgment provides welcome clarity on how that team-based model fits within the statutory framework, while also reinforcing the importance of supervision, accountability and proper delegation. 

The background 

At the centre of the case was a question that many firms will recognise in practice: can legal executives, paralegals or other non-authorised staff carry out litigation work as part of their day-to-day roles within an authorised firm? 

The High Court took a more restrictive approach, holding that the right to conduct litigation attaches to authorised individuals rather than to firms as a whole, and cannot be conferred simply by employment. On that view, non-authorised staff could assist with litigation, but the formal conduct of litigation had to be carried out by someone personally authorised. 

That interpretation caused understandable concern, particularly for firms that rely on supervised teams to manage litigation efficiently and effectively. 

What the Court of Appeal clarified 

The Court of Appeal has now provided greater clarity on how the statutory framework should be understood in practice. Its judgment draws an important distinction between the tasks involved in litigation and the carrying on of the conduct of litigation. 

In practical terms, the Court recognised that litigation work is frequently carried out by teams, with authorised individuals directing and supervising work that may be performed by non-authorised colleagues. The key point is not that every task must be done personally by an authorised person, but that the authorised person must retain responsibility for the conduct of the litigation and ensure appropriate oversight. 

That is a significant clarification for firms. It confirms that properly supervised delegation remains part of legitimate legal practice, and that the use of support staff in litigation teams is not, in itself, contrary to the statutory scheme. 

Delegation and supervision 

The practical message from the judgment is clear: delegation is permitted, but it must be done properly. 

Non-authorised individuals may carry out litigation-related tasks on behalf of an authorised person, provided those tasks are undertaken within a suitable supervisory structure. The authorised person remains responsible, and the firm must ensure that direction, control and accountability are clearly maintained. 

This does not dilute the importance of regulatory compliance. On the contrary, it reinforces the need for firms to be able to show that supervision is real, not merely nominal. Clear internal processes, defined responsibilities and appropriate oversight will remain essential. 

What this means for firms 

For most firms, the judgment should be reassuring. It confirms that team-based working models can continue, and that legal executives, trainees and paralegals can continue to make a meaningful contribution to litigation work under proper supervision. 

At the same time, the decision is a prompt for firms to review how they structure litigation teams and document supervision arrangements. In particular, firms may wish to consider: 

• how responsibility for litigation matters is allocated. 

• whether supervision arrangements are clearly recorded. 

• how delegated tasks are monitored and reviewed. 

• whether staff understand the limits of their role. 

• whether file management systems reflect the realities of supervision and oversight. 

Those steps are not simply about risk management. They also support efficient, scalable and client-focused service delivery. 

Why the case matters 

Although the decision resolves an important point of principle, Mazur remains significant because it has brought renewed focus to the boundaries of reserved legal activities and the practical operation of litigation teams. It is a reminder that legal work must be structured not only around service delivery, but also around the regulatory framework that governs who is entitled to do what. 

For firms, that means this is a good moment to take stock. The judgment offers reassurance, but it also underlines the value of clear governance, robust supervision and careful allocation of responsibilities within litigation teams. 

Looking ahead 

The immediate uncertainty created by the earlier High Court decision has now been eased, but the wider conversation about supervision and reserved activities is likely to continue. Firms that take the time to review their processes now will be better placed to adapt confidently and demonstrate compliance. 

In a profession that increasingly relies on collaborative working, the Court of Appeal’s judgment is a timely reminder that proper delegation and proper supervision do not compete with effective litigation practice; they are an essential part of it.