header-logo header-logo

24 October 2025
Issue: 8136 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Profession , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Approach with caution post-Mazur

233324
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?

The High Court has ruled that unqualified employees cannot perform ‘conduct of litigation’—even under supervision—because the Legal Services Act 2007 allows only authorised persons to take formal steps such as issuing or serving proceedings. The judgment could prompt objections to work done by unauthorised fee-earners and challenges to costs recovery. Firms must now show clear supervision records proving an authorised lawyer retained control.

The authors urge immediate reviews of delegation practices and careful documentation, predicting further litigation to clarify the limits. Their message: prudence, paperwork and authorised oversight are now essential safeguards.

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