Introduction

The recent judgment in Mazur v Speechlys, concluded on 16 September 2025, has drawn significant attention across the legal industry. The case was brought by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, an international law firm, against Julia Mazur and Jerome Stuart in relation to a debt recovery claim. The defendants countered by questioning the authority of Peter Middleton, a non-qualified fee earner, and whether his involvement in the claim was valid. The outcome of this case has disrupted long-standing industry practices and is expected to reshape how law firms operate for years to come. 

The Legal Framework 

At the forefront of this decision is the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA), which reserves the right to conduct litigation to authorised persons, as defined under section 12 of the Act. Before this judgment, there was significant ambiguity surrounding the issue of supervision. Many firms assumed that an unauthorised person could conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised person. This assumption was largely based on the absence of clear regulatory guidance, particularly within the SRA Code of Conduct, which did not explicitly define who could not act under supervision. 

In practice, many firms, especially those handling high volume, low value work, relied heavily on paralegals and other non-qualified staff to carry out essential litigation-related tasks. Furthermore, section 2.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules defines a “legal representative” as including a solicitor’s employee, which reinforced the perception that paralegals could act within this capacity. 

Case Findings 

While it was already established that unauthorised persons cannot conduct litigation, the question of whether supervision created an exemption remained unresolved. The court held that supervision does not create an entitlement to conduct litigation, and section 21(3) of the LSA does not authorise employees to do so. The court also introduced a responsibility test, stating that firms must assess whether a professional is assuming responsibility or exercising independent professional judgement. 

However, the court clarified that routine tasks such as drafting documents or letters do not by themselves amount to the conduct of litigation. Determining whether unlawful conduct has occurred requires a “true analysis”, focusing on the substance of the activity rather than its form or label.

Following the judgment, the SRA issued a statement emphasising that “the onus is on firms to satisfy themselves” that they are compliant with the LSA. While this reinforces the responsibility placed on firms, the statement remains vague about how compliance should be demonstrated or ensured in practice. 

Industry Implications 

This judgment is set to have far-reaching consequences for the role of paralegals and the broader legal workforce. Firms will need to review and restructure their internal operations, ensuring that non-qualified staff are not engaging in activities that could constitute unauthorised litigation. The added risk of criminal liability under the LSA further increases the pressure on firms to maintain strict compliance. 

Sectors reliant on high volume, low value work, where paralegals often play a central role, are likely to be the most affected. If firms discover that their paralegals have been unlawfully conducting litigation, they may be forced to reassign such work to qualified solicitors, driving up demand for both trainee and practising solicitors. Consequently, this could lead to a financial strain on firms as labour costs rise to accommodate this shift. 

Future Outlook

The Mazur v Speechlys judgment has fundamentally altered how paralegals are perceived within the legal industry and how law firms must structure their operations moving forward. While it brings greater clarity to the concept of unauthorised litigation, it also introduces uncertainty regarding the limits of a paralegal’s role. Future case law will likely develop this area further, but for now, firms must act cautiously, ensuring that compliance with the Legal Services Act 2007 remains at the forefront of their operations.