A Year Of Litigation About ‘Conduct of Litigation’: Mazur Judgment And The Way Forward
It is a rare irony that the legal profession has spent much of the last year litigating about what it means to conduct litigation.
On 31 March 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down its much-anticipated judgment in Mazur v CILEX & Others [2026] EWCA Civ 369. The decision has been widely welcomed across the legal profession because it resolved concerns arising from an earlier High Court ruling that threatened long-established methods of delivering litigation services.
At the heart of the case was a fundamental question: can non-authorised staff, such as paralegals and CILEX members, undertake litigation tasks (‘conduct of litigation’) under the supervision of a qualified solicitor without committing a criminal offence under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007)?
The Court of Appeal answered that question firmly in the affirmative.
Background
The dispute arose from debt recovery proceedings brought on behalf of Charles Russell Speechlys who hired GBS (the firm) to recover their unpaid legal fees from their previous clients, Mrs Julia Mazur and Mr Jerome Stuart. The proceedings had been signed and filed by the head of commercial litigation of GBS, who did not hold a practising certificate i.e. was unqualified. The defendants argued that he had unlawfully conducted litigation, a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007, rendering the proceedings a nullity.
The issue quickly evolved beyond the facts of the individual case. It raised broader concerns about how legal services are delivered throughout England and Wales and whether routine delegation to paralegals and other non-authorised staff could expose firms and individuals to criminal liability.
Why the High Court Decision Caused Concern
In the High Court Sheldon J took a restrictive approach. It was held that an unauthorised person could not “conduct litigation” simply because they were acting under the supervision of a qualified solicitor. The Court distinguished between assisting an authorised individual and actually conducting litigation, stating that unauthorised persons who conduct litigation risk committing a criminal offence under the Legal Services Act 2007 with potential contempt of court consequences. The Judgment was however silent on the ‘conduct of litigation’.
That interpretation caused significant concern across the legal profession. If upheld, it had the potential to disrupt the working practices of law firms, law centres and legal services providers that routinely rely on supervised delegation.
The importance of the issue is reflected in the number of interveners before the Court of Appeal, including CILEX, the Law Society, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the Legal Services Board (LSB) and the Law Centres Network (LCN).
3 Main Issues
The appeal raised three core issues:
- Were the unauthorised persons carrying on the conduct of litigation merely by performing litigation tasks under supervision?
- What acts constitute “conducting litigation”?
- Is the working model adopted by law centres lawful under the LSA 2007?
Decision of the Court of Appeal
1. First Issue
The Court of Appeal undertook a detailed review of the historical position before and after the Legal Services Act 2007 and concluded that the Parliament could not have intended to criminalise the long-established practice of delegated legal work carried out under proper supervision.
The Court drew an important distinction between:
- “Conduct of litigation“, refers to tasks involved like issuing proceedings and serving documents
- “Carry on“, meaning the direction, control and responsibility for those tasks
The Court of Appeal held that the offence in section 14 of the 2007 Act is to be interpreted narrowly and unauthorised person who performs litigation tasks for and on behalf of an authorised individual would not be carrying on litigation, provided that authorised individual retains responsibility for it, complies with professional duties and ensures appropriate supervision. The Court left the details to be determined by the regulators.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court’s distinction between ‘assisting’ and conduction under supervision was therefore wrong in law.
The decision effectively preserves the position that most firms believed already existed.
2. Second Issue
The Appeal did not provide a complete answer to what activities fall within the statutory definition of “conduct of litigation”. The Court expressly declined to give an exhaustive definition. The Court confirmed that issuing proceedings, formal procedural steps and the commencement, prosecution and defence of proceedings fall within the concept of conducting litigation.
However, the Court indicated that a range of activities are unlikely to fall within the definition, including such as pre-litigation work, providing legal advice, correspondence with opponents, evidence gathering, instructing counsel and signing statements of truth in most circumstances.
While helpful, these examples did not eliminate the uncertainty. Many practical questions about day-to-day delegation remained unanswered.
3. Third Issue
Given its answers to issues 1 and 2, the Court held that the law centres’ supervised delegation model is lawful, without needing to rely on transitional exemptions or carve out.
SRA’s guidance on Supervision – 12th June 2026
Following the judgment, the SRA published updated guidance on effective supervision on 12th June 2026. The guidance reflects the Court of Appeal’s decision and provides practical insight into how law firms should approach delegation and supervision.
The SRA confirms that unauthorised individuals may lawfully perform tasks within the scope of the conduct of litigation on behalf of an authorised person. However, the ultimate responsibility remains with the authorised individual supervising the work.
The guidance also emphasises that effective supervision is not merely a good practice but a regulatory requirement. Regulated individuals and firms remain accountable for the work undertaken by those they supervise.
Importantly, the SRA expects firms to implement clear delegation arrangements, meaningful supervision, and appropriate systems of audit and quality assurance. Solicitors must be able to demonstrate that they exercise proper direction, management, supervision and control over delegated work.
The SRA also stresses that the level of supervision required will depend on factors such as the complexity of the work, the competence and experience of the individual undertaking it, the risks to clients, and the firm’s overall systems and controls.
Where Does This Leave Us?
The Court of Appeal has undoubtedly provided welcoming reassurance for the legal profession. It has confirmed that the long-standing model of supervised delegation remains lawful and that paralegals and other non-authorised staff may perform litigation tasks for and on behalf of authorised solicitors.
The key principle emerging from both the judgment and the SRA guidance is that delegation is permissible, but the ultimate responsibility is not transferable. The authorised individual must retain responsibility for the work and must be able to demonstrate effective direction, supervision and control.
For now, the profession can take comfort that the established model of supervised delegation survives. The challenge ahead is ensuring that supervisory arrangements are robust enough to satisfy both the Court’s reasoning and the regulator’s expectations.
For a phrase so familiar to practitioners, ‘conduct of litigation’ has generated an extraordinary amount of litigation of its own; Mazur represents an important step towards brining that chapter to a close.
If you are involved in a dispute and need expert legal advice, our Dispute Resolution team can help. Contact our solicitors today on 0330 822 3451, or request a callback.