In Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechly LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 the court considered this question.
The retrospective rights under Mazur
To many currently unqualified individuals in the legal sector, the recently overturned case of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechly LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 appeared to have a major impact upon what “non-authorised” individuals can do, this article will delve into and explain the powers that trainees, paralegals or other unqualified individuals would have had under this rules of this case.
The judgment of Mr Justice Sheldon stated that individuals who are neither authorised nor exempt by the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA) may support others as they conduct litigation but may not “conduct litigation under supervision”.
‘Conducting litigation’ is defined within the LSA, to summarise its meaning, it is the activities, such as issuing and defending proceedings, as well as the power to manage other procedural steps.
This defined term does not appear to include the typical tasks of trainees such as drafting, client communications and the other administrative duties but it raises concern at the ability to run a caseload and practice advocacy.
The important distinction for individuals who were wanting to exercise a right of audience i.e. attend court for a hearing and apply the rules set out by Mazur is that – conduct of litigation is not the same thing as exercising a right of audience.
This Judgment did not affect the rights of audience of advocates who are “assisting in the conduct of litigation” when they attend court by virtue of the exemption under Schedule 3 of the LSA where it is determined ‘whether a person is an exempt person for the purpose of exercising a right of audience before a court in relation to any proceedings’. Under paragraph 1(7)(b) a person is exempt if they exercise a right of audience i.e. attend a hearing under instructions given (either generally or in relation to the proceedings) by an individual to whom sub-paragraph (8) applies (any authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the conduct of litigation) or if that sub-paragraph (8) individual is supervising.
To simplify, unqualified individuals could appear in county courts (with the exception of reserved family proceedings) if an authorised person had instructed them to do so; they would be appearing as an agent for their authorised instructor.
There is also a further route under sub-paragraph (2) of Schedule 3 where under their discretion, a Judge can allow someone to address the court, thus granting a right of audience, though an alternative way to potentially receive right of audience and the ability to practice advocacy, it is not guaranteed.
However the headline arising from the case was that non-authorised individuals could not conduct litigation under supervision.
This will have scared clients and those in the profession alike, since non-authorised individuals are vital to the provision of legal services to the public, and there would likely have been a knock on cost increase across the board.
Luckily after March 31st 2026, unauthorised staff obtained the clarity needed and their power back to be delegated most tasks when the Court of Appeal overturned the Mazur decision; provided that they are under the supervision of an authorised person they can conduct litigation tasks, alongside all of their basic rights set out above.