Mazur: Rethinking who can conduct litigation and what it means for your firm

What is ‘Mazur’?

The case of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) – delivered on 16 September 2025 – continues to send shockwaves through the legal profession, and has left many law firms up in the air as to staff supervision.  The ruling has reignited debate about who can “conduct” litigation and the limits of supervised work by non-authorised staff.

At its heart, Mazur reaffirmed that only authorised individuals (such as solicitors with current practising certificates or CILEX litigators with the appropriate rights) may “conduct” litigation. Supervision, however robust, does not substitute for authorisation.

Key developments since the Mazur judgment

SRA Response and updated guidance

Following widespread criticism, including from the Law Society and Parliament, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) published updated guidance on 25 October 2025 confirming that firms must immediately review their litigation processes to ensure compliance with Mazur.

The SRA’s revised “Conducting Litigation” page now explicitly recognises that some of its earlier communications were misleading. It clarifies:

• Employment by an authorised firm does not confer the right to conduct litigation.
• Supervision does not authorise a non-solicitor to take steps that amount to “conducting litigation” (such as signing or filing documents with the court).
• Firms relying on previous informal SRA correspondence (such as the letter referenced in Mazur) are advised to carry out urgent internal audits and self-report any material breaches.

Vitally, the SRA also confirmed it will not take retrospective disciplinary action against individuals or firms that acted in good faith on the basis of earlier SRA advice – a position echoed by King’s Counsel and former judges in commentary reported by Legal Futures

Legal Services Board (LSB) approves CILEX litigation rights

In a move widely seen as a response to Mazur, the Legal Services Board on 31 October 2025 approved CILEX Regulation’s application to extend litigation and advocacy rights to additional CILEX members

The decision, described by the Law Gazette as a “breakthrough,” allows more Chartered Legal Executives to gain practising rights through a streamlined application process. This could significantly alleviate the staffing pressures on litigation teams caused by Mazur’s stricter boundaries.

However, the LSB’s statement also confirmed that it is conducting a broader review of the regulatory framework across the legal professions – including whether the Legal Services Act 2007 requires amendment to reflect modern working models.

Parliamentary scrutiny and MoJ involvement

On 20 October 2025, Andy Slaughter MP, Chair of the Justice Committee, wrote to Sarah Sackman KC MP (Minister for Courts and Legal Services) raising serious concerns

The Committee sought urgent clarification on:

• Whether the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has assessed the impact of Mazur on access to justice, costs, and the operation of the courts.
• Potential conflicts between the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and the Legal Services Act 2007, given the CPR’s inclusion of “a solicitor’s employee” in its definition of “legal representative.”
• The adequacy of regulatory responses, particularly the inconsistency between the SRA, the Law Society, and CILEX Regulation.
• The Committee noted an “obvious concern that regulators may have failed for many years to address adequately the illegal practice of allowing non-authorised employees to conduct litigation.”

A formal MoJ response is expected by late November 2025.

Professional and regulatory tensions

The Mazur fallout has revealed deep divisions between professional bodies:

• The Law Society has called on the SRA to “urgently update its generic guidance” and work collaboratively to restore clarity.
• CILEX and CILEX Regulation have both issued interim guidance and are consulting on further updates.
• The LSB has begun a cross-regulator review to assess whether the Legal Services Act and associated rules sufficiently define and protect reserved activities.
  
  

Potential confusion within the Civil Procedure Rules

One emerging issue is the potential conflict between the CPR and the LSA.

As highlighted in the Law Gazette, CPR 2.3 defines a “legal representative” to include “a solicitor’s employee… instructed to act for a party.” This appears to contradict Mazur, which insists only authorised persons may “conduct litigation.”

If this inconsistency remains unresolved, there is risk of continued misunderstanding across firms – an issue the MoJ has now been asked to clarify formally.

What it currently means for law firms 

The compliance burden has intensified since September:

• Firms are being advised to pause any delegation of litigation tasks that could cross into “conducting” until clear guidance is confirmed.
• Internal audits should be underway to confirm who signs, files, or issues documents in ongoing litigation.
• Supervision records should explicitly identify the authorised person responsible for conduct and decision-making.
• Engagement letters and website disclosures should be reviewed to confirm transparency about who is authorised to act.

The SRA has also indicated that firms who self-report historical reliance on SRA advice will be treated leniently, but that ignorance of the updated position will not be a defence moving forward.

Broader implications

• Regulatory reform likely on the cards – With the Justice Committee now examining whether the Legal Services Act 2007 is “fit for purpose,” legislative change may follow to clarify definitions of “conducting litigation” and align the CPR.
• CILEX empowerment – The LSB’s approval of new litigation rights for CILEX professionals marks a significant shift in workforce capability and may ease the pressure on firms to increase solicitor headcount.
• Access to justice concerns – MPs and regulators are increasingly alert to the risk that restricting who can conduct litigation could raise costs and reduce access to affordable representation.

Final thoughts

The Mazur decision has evolved from a single High Court judgment into a full-scale regulatory reckoning.

With the SRA, CILEX Regulation, and the LSB all moving to align guidance, and with Parliament now directly involved, the coming months are likely to reshape how litigation work is structured and supervised.

Law firms must stay alert – and proactive – in adjusting internal systems, supervision protocols, and public disclosures.

The direction of travel is clear: authorisation matters, supervision alone is no longer enough.