Mazur v CRS 2025: Increasing Demand for Locum Litigation Solicitors in SME Law Firms

Introduction

In September 2025, the High Court delivered a significant ruling in Julia Mazur & anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). The case concerns whether a non-solicitor (specifically a litigation executive without a practising certificate) could conduct litigation under supervision of a solicitor, and the consequences of that position. The decision has sent ripples through the legal services market, particularly for small and medium law firms (SMEs) that have for years used CILEX-qualified staff, practising fee earners, or paralegals to handle high volumes of litigation under supervision or “shadowing” arrangements.

For SME law firms that may now urgently need to source locum litigation solicitors to fill gaps in their capacity (for instance, where CILEX practitioners can no longer lawfully handle litigation tasks), the Mazur judgment should be read as a sobering warning.

The Mazur Judgment: Key Facts & Holding

Factual background

• Charles Russell Speechlys (CRS) had engaged specialists Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (GBS) to recover an unpaid legal bill of £54,000 from former clients Julia Mazur and Jerome Stuart.
• The claim form was signed by GBS, and the particulars of claim were drafted and signed by Peter Middleton, described as head of commercial litigation at GBS. However, Middleton held no current practising certificate.
• The appellants challenged that procedure, arguing that only an authorised person may conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA). The County Court had stayed proceedings initially. Later, after Middleton was replaced by a qualified solicitor (Lisa Adkin) and an application made, the stay was lifted, and costs awarded against the appellants.
• The appeal to the High Court did not engage in a deep forensic fact-finding about whether Middleton had indeed “conducted” litigation; rather, the Court focused on the legal question whether an unauthorised person could conduct litigation under supervision, and whether the lower court had misapplied the Legal Services Act.

Legal holding and ratio

Mr Justice Sheldon delivered judgment. His key holdings:

1. Unauthorised person cannot conduct litigation simply by virtue of being supervised
   The court held that a person who is not themselves authorised to conduct litigation under the LSA cannot lawfully conduct litigation merely under the general supervision of a solicitor. Supervision is insufficient to confer the right to carry out reserved legal activity.
2. Authorisation cannot be “inherited” from the employer
   The argument that the firm’s regulated status or the supervising solicitor’s authorisation vests an employment-based right to conduct litigation was rejected. The LSA must be read strictly, and the regulated status of a firm does not itself authorise every employee to perform reserved activities.
3. Distinction between support and “conducting” litigation
   The judgment emphasises that non-solicitor staff may support a solicitor in litigation (e.g. document preparation, research, proofreading, assisting with bundles), but they cannot themselves take control of decision-making, issue documents, or make strategic judgments — those must remain under the solicitor’s control. The boundary is a question of substance, not form.
4. Criminal, regulatory and cost consequences
   The court reaffirmed that conducting a reserved legal activity without entitlement is a criminal offence, and both the individual and the employing firm could be liable. (Civil Litigation Brief)
   On costs, Justice Sheldon held that the County Court’s costs award (over £10,000) was excessive and contrary to the fixed costs regime applicable on the intermediate track: the maximum recoverable should have been £333 plus the court fee (in that particular lift-stay application). Consequently, the High Court quashed the costs order and substituted “no order as to costs.”

The court declined to strike out the underlying claim or refer Middleton directly to the SRA, noting that the regulator was likely to consider the judgment further and that Middleton had already been removed from the file.

The Mazur decision sends a clear message: if you are a firm relying on non-solicitor staff to run litigation, you must urgently re-assess whether your arrangements comply with the LSA.

Implications for SME Law Firms and CILEX / Non-Solicitor Staff

While the Mazur case involved a commercial debt recovery scenario, its ripple effects will reach every firm — including smaller practices and regional SME firms — particularly those that have relied on CILEX-qualified lawyers, paralegals, litigation executives or support staff to pick up litigation work under supervision.

Here are the principal implications:

1. Restriction on CILEX or non-solicitor litigators

Many SME or regional firms have lawfully used CILEX-qualified or litigation executive staff to handle substantial elements of litigation, under supervision, especially for less complex matters. Mazur suggests that parts of that model may now become non-compliant:

• Although CILEX is a recognised legal qualification, not all CILEX members are authorised persons under the LSA to conduct litigation. Unless they hold the necessary authorisation, they cannot carry out reserved activities themselves. CILEX members were clearly misled by their regulator and look to have been given bad advice – see https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/leaked-webinar-reveals-cilex-members-were-misled-pre-mazur/5124659.article
• Tasks that include judgment, decision-making, pleadings, applying for injunctions, strategic correspondence or issuing proceedings are more likely to be characterised as “conducting” litigation rather than mere support, and thus cannot be delegated to non-authorised staff.
• Even if a non-solicitor is “under supervision,” the High Court has made clear supervision does not automatically cure the regulatory defect.

SME law firms relying heavily on CILEX staff for litigation must now audit which tasks are still permissible and which must be undertaken (or at least supervised in a more controlled way) by fully authorised solicitors.

2. Heightened regulatory risk and criminal exposure

The decision underlines that breaches of the LSA’s prohibition on unauthorised litigation are not merely technical — they carry criminal, regulatory, and professional risk:

• An individual performing unauthorised reserved work can be criminally liable.
• The employing firm may contravene the LSA as well.
• Professional indemnity or regulatory scrutiny may intensify, particularly if regulators view such practices as undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.

For SMEs operating on tight margins, an adverse regulatory sanction or claim of unauthorised practice could be existential.

3. Urgent need for authorised capacity — locum litigation solicitors

The most immediate and practical consequence is this: when your non-solicitor staff can no longer lawfully take on litigation steps, you will need to ensure that authorised solicitors (whether employed, contracted, or engaged on a locum basis) are available to manage the work. If you need a locum litigation solicitor please contact us.

Looking Ahead: Open Questions and Watchpoints

Mazur is likely only the opening salvo in what may become a more active regulatory and judicial scrutiny of delegation in litigation. Some key open questions and trends to monitor:

• Where is the precise boundary?
  The High Court left unresolved the precise line between support and conducting litigation. Future cases may clarify whether drafting correspondence, settlement strategy, or certain interlocutory applications are permissible support. (Bevan Brittan)
• Regulatory guidelines or SRA guidance
  The SRA may issue further guidance to practices or update its interpretative stances in light of Mazur.
• Further cases or appeals
  An appeal or follow-ons could refine or even narrow the scope of Mazur’s ratio.
• Impact on fixed-cost litigation models
  Many lower-value or consumer litigation models rely on volume throughput with non-solicitor staff – Mazur may impose a structural reassessment of that model.
• Cost-shifting and client demands
  Clients may push back on increased solicitor rates. Pressure to absorb or share the cost impact may lead to creative pricing or hybrid models (solicitor + non-solicitor team).
• Technological augmentation
  As firms reconsider human delegation, they may invest more in automation, document assembly technology, and AI review to reduce reliance on human fee-earners for routine tasks — thereby reshaping what “support” looks like.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in Julia Mazur & anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) is a landmark ruling for UK litigation practice. For SME law firms that have long leveraged CILEX, litigation executives, or paralegals to assist in litigation, the judgment demands urgent structural review. In particular, tasks formerly delegated (or delegated under supervision) may need to be reallocated to fully authorised solicitors. For firms facing immediate capacity gaps, sourcing locum litigation solicitors is no longer optional — it is a compliance imperative. Engaging reputable, qualified locums, embedding them in tight supervision regimes, and redesigning internal workflows is now essential to ensure you do not fall foul of the Legal Services Act or regulatory scrutiny.

If your firm is now considering locum recruitment or compliance restructuring, you may wish to engage specialist locum services such as ourselves!

We wonder when the courts or government will look to resolve what appears to be a complete mess, but we are already seeing litigation locum vacancies getting registered by law firms looking very nervously at the decision.