Cannot conduct litigation — even when supervised
A dramatic High Court ruling has found that non-solicitors — including trainees, paralegals and legal executives — cannot conduct litigation, even under the supervision of a qualified solicitor.
Handed down by Mr Justice Sheldon in Mazur & Others v Charles Russell Speechlys, the judgment contradicted earlier advice from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and sparked alarm across the legal profession.
“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 judge said.
The case centred on Bradford-based debt recovery outfit Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors, which had been instructed by City law firm Charles Russell Speechlys to chase nearly £55,000 in unpaid fees. Objections arose when particulars of claim were signed by GBS’s head of commercial litigation, Peter Middleton, who was not a practising solicitor.
Initially, the SRA told the firm there was no issue, assuring the firm that employees were “permitted to undertake reserved legal activities”. But the regulator later changed its stance during the case, advising that unqualified staff could only support solicitors in litigation — not conduct it themselves.
The judge described the SRA’s earlier conclusion as “clearly wrong”. He also warned that under the Legal Services Act 2007, “an employer, even if authorised to carry out a reserved legal activity, can commit a criminal offence if one of their employees carries on a reserved legal activity without being entitled to”.
The Law Society, intervening in the case, argued that whether a non-solicitor had crossed the line into conducting litigation was “a question of fact and degree”, pointing to factors such as who takes key decisions, drafts or approves documents, and assumes overall responsibility for the case. Routine administrative steps, it stressed — like serving documents, preparing bundles or running searches — have never been regarded as conducting litigation.
The judge did not decide whether Middleton himself had crossed that line, saying this was not appropriate given that the SRA may wish to consider “regulatory intervention”.
Unsurprisingly, the ruling has caused widespread concern, with questions raised about the future role of junior staff in litigation teams. The Law Society acknowledged that “the question where the boundary line is between ‘conducting’ and ‘supporting’ litigation remains a grey area”. It added it would be working with the SRA to provide clearer guidance so firms can reassess their processes and make any necessary changes.
The SRA has since insisted that the judgment has not changed the existing legal position. “Being engaged (whether as an employee or other contractor) by an authorised person who is permitted to conduct reserved activities does not automatically confer a right to conduct litigation on an employee or contractor who is not authorised,” the regulator said. “They are permitted to support litigation under appropriate supervision, not to conduct it.”
“The onus is on firms to satisfy themselves that they are complying with the LSA, and only authorised individuals are conducting litigation,” it continued. “We recommend you should be recording your decision-making around the approach you are taking.”
(
(