Law Society issues practice note on conduct of litigation in light of Mazur ruling

The Law Society has issued a practice note providing advice on how solicitors, law firms and legal businesses can make sure that only those authorised to do so carry on the conduct of litigation, following the High Court judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys.

The note covers what litigation is, who is authorised to conduct litigation, and what does and does not fall within the reserved activity of the conduct of litigation.

It also sets out the activities non-authorised team members can carry out to support authorised individuals in their own right and/or under supervision.

The note includes information on the consequences of a breach.

The Law Society's practice note comes after the decision in Julia Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), in which Mr Justice Sheldon ruled that an employee of an authorised firm cannot conduct litigation simply by virtue of their employment, even if supervised by an authorised person.

The decision has since caused concern among legal professionals over the use of legal executives in the conduct of litigation.

Commenting on the implications of the decision in September, a spokesperson for the Law Society said the question of where the boundary is between conducting litigation and assisting an authorised person to do so "remains something of a grey area, on which further clarification would be welcome".

It also said Mazur has "significant implications given the number of unregulated entities now providing services to litigants in person in connection with litigation".

Mazur has also prompted CILEx Regulation, the independent regulatory body of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx), to apply to the Legal Services Board (LSB) to enable its regulated community to obtain standalone litigation practice rights.

The LSB recently said it will undertake a review of how approved regulators and regulatory bodies have ensured that information about conducting litigation is accurate and reliable – and has since called for clear and accurate information to be made available to lawyers and legal professionals conducting litigation in light of the decision.

Adam Carey