Law Society issues new guidance on Mazur case

17 Oct 2025News

Following the High Court decision, the Law Society has published important guidance for litigation solicitors to clarify roles

On 17 October, the Law Society of England and Wales responded to the High Court’s judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys by publishing a detailed practice note aimed at solicitors engaged in litigation. The Mazur case raised critical questions regarding the role of non-authorised persons in the conduct of litigation, ultimately clarifying that non-authorised individuals cannot legally engage in this activity under the supervision of an authorised person. The judgment establishes that both the firm and the individual involved in conducting litigation must possess the necessary authorisation.

Law Society president Mark Evans emphasised that the ruling had created uncertainty within the legal profession, stating “we hope this practice note will provide greater clarity to our members.” He further outlined the definition of those authorised to conduct litigation, which includes solicitors holding a practising certificate, costs lawyers, chartered legal executives, barristers, and patent or trademark attorneys with appropriate litigation rights.

The guidance specifies the scope of work that can be carried out by non-authorised staff, noting that they are permitted to assist in drafting pleadings and witness statements among other tasks, but must do so under the supervision of an authorised person. Regarding the responsibilities of non-authorised personnel, Evans mentioned that “tasks can be delegated so long as there is an authorised person responsible for each matter.”

Evans also warned against acting without proper authorisation, highlighting that “acting without authorisation is a breach of a solicitor’s regulatory obligations and may result in disciplinary action.” The Law Society encourages firms to review their processes to align with the existing regulations under the Legal Services Act 2007 to avoid potential breaches and penalties in litigation cases. Furthermore, he advised that disciplinary actions should be the proper recourse for breaches, rather than impacting ongoing court proceedings.

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|

Employment tribunal cases rising sharply

Recent Ministry of Justice figures reveal a significant increase in open Employment Tribunal cases and challenges faced by employers

SRA updates guidance for litigation supervision

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has enhanced its supervision guidelines to clarify litigation conduct after recent court rulings

Millions of fathers lack parental responsibility

Many fathers may be surprised to learn about their parental responsibility rights and how to secure them

Re Poundstretcher: cross-class cramdown survives even when six landlord classes say no

The Chancery Division sanctions Poundstretcher's restructuring plan despite six dissenting landlord classes, applying the Adler and Petrofac framework.

Ponsford v Sali: a property partnership's messy divorce shows why documentation wins partnership disputes

The Chancery Division takes a pragmatic, evidence based approach to untangling a property partnership built on undocumented cash dealings.

North Somerset District Council v Secretary of State: failing the flood sequential test is not the end of the story

The Planning Court confirms that a failed flood risk sequential test still gets weighed in the planning balance, not treated as an automatic refusal.

Thomas Armstrong (Aggregates) v Housing Secretary: when landfill buries a quarry's right to be reviewed

The Planning Court applies Pilkington and Hillside to find a 1954 quarry permission can no longer be revived under the ROMP regime.

Clerkenwell Lifestyle v HG Construction: be careful what you call "agreed" in extension of time correspondence

The TCC enforces a £955,943 adjudication award after rejecting a contractor's late attempt to recast email exchanges as a binding settlement.

Ward v Donnellan: when both sides lie, "no order for costs" is not a free pass

The Court of Appeal overturns a no order for costs ruling, finding a judge let a dishonest claimant off too lightly.

London Borough of Camden v BW: when a single missing fact can decide a capacity case

The Court of Protection finds an expert's failure to explore one consequence, losing a placement, was enough to undermine his capacity assessment.

Griffiths v Essex County Council: EAT clarifies causation in discrimination remedy awards and sends pension loss back for recalculation

A single act of indirect disability discrimination can ground a full loss of earnings award, even where a later constructive dismissal claim was framed only...