header-logo header-logo

Conducting litigation: approach with caution

233324
In the wake of Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys, prudence & clear documentation are key, write Kevin Latham & Fraser Barnstaple

The decision of Mr Justice Sheldon in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has sent ripples through the legal profession. By revisiting who can conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007), the judgment challenges long-held assumptions about the role of unauthorised staff in litigation.

But are the impacts of the judgment as widespread and, frankly, catastrophic as first feared by some? We would argue not.

Background facts

The litigation in question was handled almost entirely by Mr Middleton, head of commercial litigation at Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors. Although employed by a regulated firm, he was unqualified. He filed and served proceedings, among 28 other important steps listed in the judgment. The appellants applied for his replacement with a qualified solicitor.

The claim was stayed, and in support of an application to lift the stay the firm filed a witness statement from a solicitor at the firm confirming

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll