High Court clarifies: non-qualified staff cannot conduct litigation — even under supervision
The High Court has ruled in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys that non-qualified staff cannot conduct litigation, even under a solicitor’s supervision. The decision overturns earlier SRA guidance and has major implications for debt-recovery law firms that rely on litigation executives. CPA advises all businesses to ensure that any legal proceedings on overdue debts are handled by authorised professionals — protecting your rights, your reputation, and your recoveries.
Case: Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)
Judge: Mr Justice Sheldon
Date: 16 September 2025
Court: King’s Bench Division
Background
- A debt-recovery claim was issued by Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (GBS) to recover unpaid fees for Charles Russell Speechlys LLP.
- The claim documents were signed and managed by Peter Middleton, “Head of Commercial Litigation” at GBS — but he had no practising certificate.
- The defendants (Mazur and Stuart) argued that GBS had unlawfully allowed an unauthorised person to “conduct litigation”, a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA).
- HHJ Simpkiss in the County Court disagreed and lifted a stay on proceedings, relying on the SRA’s view that employees of an authorised firm could undertake reserved work under supervision.
- Mazur and Stuart appealed.
The High Court’s key ruling
Mr Justice Sheldon allowed the appeal, holding that:
“Mr Middleton was not entitled to conduct litigation under the supervision of Mr Ashall.”
Main points
- Employment and supervision are not enough
Section 21(3) LSA does not extend authorisation to non-qualified employees. It merely defines who is subject to SRA regulation, not who is authorised to perform reserved activities. - Separate authorisation required
Only an “authorised person” (s. 18) or an “exempt person” (s. 19) may conduct litigation. A firm’s authorisation does not cover its unqualified staff. - Conducting vs supporting
Non-qualified staff may support litigation (drafting, clerical work, preparing bundles) but cannot conduct it — even under supervision. Conducting litigation means assuming responsibility and exercising professional judgment over the case. - SRA and Law Society submissions agreed
Both interveners confirmed that section 21(3) gives regulatory reach only; it does not create entitlement. The High Court endorsed that view in full. - SRA letter was wrong in law
The earlier SRA statement saying that GBS’s employees were “permitted to undertake reserved activities” was described as “clearly wrong”. - Cost order quashed
HHJ Simpkiss’s £10,653 costs order was overturned. The maximum fixed cost allowable under CPR 45 for an Intermediate Track application was £333 plus the £303 court fee.
Implications for law firms and debt-collection agencies
- Non-qualified fee-earners cannot issue proceedings, sign pleadings, or run litigation, even if the firm itself is authorised and supervision exists.
- Allowing them to do so may expose both the individual and the firm to criminal liability under sections 14–16 LSA.
- Any filings made by unauthorised staff could be open to challenge or cost sanctions.
- SRA-regulated firms must review job descriptions, supervision records, and sign-off procedures immediately.
- High-volume debt-recovery businesses relying on “litigation executives” or similar roles need to re-assess compliance frameworks.
Practical takeaway for CPA members
For Credit Protection Association members and partners:
Ensure that any litigation on overdue accounts is carried out only by authorised solicitors or exempt persons.
Administrative staff may assist — but must not sign, issue, or take strategic decisions in litigation.
This ruling reinforces CPA’s core approach to resolve overdue accounts without resorting to litigation.
Let’s improve your cash flow now
Boost recoveries without going to litigation. Keep goodwill.
Call Peter Uwins (National Sales Manager): 020 8846 0000 (business hours)
Email: nsm@cpa.co.uk