The Court of Appeal has now handed down its judgment in Mazur, providing important clarification on the supervision of litigation and the role of authorised and non-authorised individuals within legal practice.
The decision will be welcomed across the profession, particularly by firms that rely on experienced but non-qualified team members to undertake substantial litigation work under supervision.
In essence, the Court of Appeal has restored to an extent the position that existed prior to the High Court’s decision in September last year. However, it emphasises that the conduct of litigation must remain with an authorised person, who may delegate tasks to unauthorised individuals working under real and meaningful supervision. However, what degree of supervision is required is one of the questions that remains unanswered.
Background
The original High Court decision in Mazur raised significant concern within the legal sector. It suggested that certain litigation tasks carried out by non-authorised individuals could amount to the conduct of litigation unless they were directly undertaken by an authorised person.
This interpretation created uncertainty for many firms, particularly those with established litigation teams where experienced paralegals, case handlers or legal executives undertake significant casework under supervision.
For organisations handling high-volume litigation – including areas such as housing disrepair, consumer claims and financial mis-selling – the ruling prompted questions about whether existing working practices might inadvertently fall foul of the statutory framework.
At the centre of the issue is section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007, which makes it a criminal offence to carry out a reserved legal activity without proper authorisation.
The Court of Appeal’s decision
The Court of Appeal has now revisited the issue and clarified the position.
While restoring the practical working model that many firms have long relied upon, the Court made clear that the conduct of litigation must remain with an authorised person and supervision must be genuine and meaningful.
In particular, the judgment emphasises that:
- Tasks which would otherwise amount to the conduct of litigation must be supervised appropriately, taking into account the nature and importance of the work being undertaken
- The authorised person must, in reality, remain responsible for the conduct of the litigation
- Where supervision is merely nominal, there is a risk that the statutory offence under section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007 could be engaged.
The decision therefore provides reassurance for many legal teams while reinforcing the importance of proper professional oversight.
However, it does leave two important questions unanswered:
- What is meant by the “conduct of litigation”? The Court of Appeal declined to provide an exhaustive definition
- What degree of supervision is required? This will always depend on the nature of the work and the circumstances in which it is undertaken.
Craig Leigh’s view
Commenting on the decision, Craig Leigh, Barrister and Managing Director of 8PP Barristers & Associates, said:
“The Court of Appeal judgment in Mazur restores to some extent the position as it was prior to the High Court’s judgment handed down in September last year, but contains a very important caveat.
The conduct of litigation must be undertaken by an authorised person who can delegate tasks to unauthorised persons as long as they are appropriately supervised according to the nature and importance of the work being undertaken.
The authorised person must, in reality, be the one responsible for – and undertake – the conduct of the litigation. Otherwise there is a significant risk that the offence under section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007 is committed.
It is a sensible decision that will enable very many unqualified but very capable members of the legal profession to get back to what they do best – helping people and promoting access to justice.”
What this means for legal teams
For many firms, the Court of Appeal’s decision provides welcome clarity in some respects, but still leaves important questions unanswered.
It confirms that experienced non-qualified legal professionals can continue to play an important role in litigation teams, provided that:
- supervision by an authorised person is real and effective
- responsibility for the litigation ultimately rests with the authorised individual
- firms maintain clear oversight and accountability structures
The judgment therefore reinforces both professional responsibility and the practical realities of modern legal practice.
Looking ahead
While the decision restores a degree of certainty, it also serves as a reminder that supervision arrangements should be properly structured and documented.
Firms may wish to review their internal processes to ensure that oversight arrangements reflect the Court of Appeal’s emphasis on genuine responsibility for the conduct of litigation.
For many, however, the judgment will be seen as a pragmatic and sensible clarification that allows experienced litigation teams to continue delivering legal services effectively while maintaining appropriate professional oversight.