Employee of authorised law firm cannot conduct litigation without practising certificate: High Court

In Julia Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), Mr Justice Sheldon found that the employee was not entitled under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA) merely by being employed by an authorised body to conduct litigation himself, even under supervision.

The Law Society has said the decision provides an “important reminder” on what non-qualified legal staff working within regulated organisations can and cannot undertake in the context of litigation.

The case arose after Charles Russell Speechlys LLP undertook legal work for Julia Mazur and Jerome Stuart, for which it claimed fees of £54,263.50. When payment was not made, the firm instructed Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (GBS) to recover the debt. A claim was issued, to which the appellants filed a defence and counterclaim.

The claim form was signed by GBS, while the particulars of claim were signed by Peter Middleton, described as “Head of Commercial Litigation” at the firm.

The appellants objected on the basis that Mr Middleton did not hold a practising certificate and applied for directions requiring that he be replaced with a qualified solicitor.

Deputy District Judge Campbell, acting of his own motion, stayed the proceedings after concluding that there was evidence Mr Middleton was engaged in a “reserved activity” under the LSA. He noted there was “no indication that anyone else at Goldsmith Bowers is in any way involved” in the litigation and directed that any application to lift the stay must be supported by a partner’s statement explaining the position.

Mr Middleton was subsequently replaced by Lisa Adkin, a solicitor with a practising certificate. GBS self-reported the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which decided not to investigate. The respondent then applied to lift the stay. His Honour Judge Simpkiss, sitting at Brighton County Court, granted the application and ordered the appellants to pay £10,653 in costs.

Mazur and Stuart appealed. Considering the appeal, Sheldon J broke the challenge into two core points: (i) whether HHJ Simpkiss had erred in deciding that Mr Middleton was authorised to conduct litigation under supervision; and (ii) whether the judge was entitled to make the £10,653 costs order.

On the first point, Sheldon J said: “The short answer to this question is ‘no’.” He continued: “Mr Middleton was not entitled to conduct litigation under the supervision of Mr Ashall. The learned judge’s conclusion to the contrary, in reliance on the SRA’s letter of 2 December 2024, was therefore an error of law.

"Mere employment by a person who is authorised to conduct litigation is not sufficient for the employee to conduct litigation themselves, even under supervision. The person conducting litigation, even under supervision, must be authorised to do so, or fall within one of the exempt categories.”

On costs, Sheldon J found that the award “cannot stand”, both because the lower court had wrongly concluded the appellants had lost on the LSA point and because the sum exceeded what could properly be awarded given the case’s allocation to the Intermediate Track.

The appeal was therefore allowed and the order requiring the appellants to pay £10,653 was quashed, with no order as to costs substituted.

Commenting on the implications of the decision, Law Society of England and Wales president Richard Atkinson said: “This case goes to the very heart of what it means to be a solicitor.

“It provides an important reminder of the limitations on the work non-qualified staff working within regulated organisations may undertake in the context of litigation. Importantly, the court made clear that such staff cannot ‘conduct litigation’.”

Chancery Lane said it is “vital that across the profession, it is understood that litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 that may only be carried out by authorised persons, even within regulated entities”.

They added: “However, 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.

“This has significant implications given the number of unregulated entities now providing services to litigants in person in connection with litigation.”

Adam Carey