The fallout from Mazur has prompted a wave of commentary across the profession – much of it loud, much of it academic. What seems to be missing, however, is the perspective of paralegals and junior lawyers likely too scared of having the police knock their door down for admitting to accidentally conducting reserved legal activities.
The “Mazur case” refers to Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025], a High Court decision that has had a profound impact on litigation practice in England and Wales, ultimately appealed to the Court of Appeal. The court clarified that the “conduct of litigation” is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 and can only be carried out by properly authorised individuals – meaning that non-qualified staff such as paralegals or trainees cannot conduct litigation even under supervision.
I write as an Apprentice Solicitor and unregistered barrister with circa four years’ experience in financial mis‑selling cases. I do not claim expertise, but I do claim proximity to the problem.
For most of my (so-far short) career, I have worked in what is often labelled “volume litigation,” particularly within motor finance mis‑selling. These cases are often streamlined and frequently allocated to the Small Claims Track, rendering consistent and direct solicitor involvement commercially unrealistic. In practice, this means that much of the legwork – drafting, evidence‑gathering, client liaison, case progression—is carried out by assistants, paralegals, and apprentices like me.
This workforce is the reason the motor finance undisclosed commission scandal reached the point where the Supreme Court weighed in and the FCA and anticipating a redress scheme. Without hundreds of junior legal professionals progressing thousands of similar cases, such developments would have been impossible.
Yet Mazur threatens to undermine that reality.
The case is already being invoked tactically. Not long ago, I contacted opposing counsel before an allocation hearing I was due to conduct under the well‑known Schedule 3 LSA exemption. He politely put me on notice that he had instructions to challenge my standing. He didn’t appear convinced by the point himself, and the judge refused to entertain the argument. But had the judge taken a stricter Mazur-influenced approach, the consequences would have been significant: our client may well have been subject to a costs order, the hearing would likely be vacated, and counsel would need to be instructed – an unrecoverable cost where the case will inevitably fall to the Small Claims Track.
Similarly, requiring micromanagement of individual steps, correspondence, and decisions, outside of the naturally required elements such as issuing proceedings and making costs-related decisions, conflates the alresdy precarious situation.
None of this promotes access to justice, nor the proper administration of it.
As it stands, Mazur harms clients, restricts solicitors, and closes doors for aspiring lawyers. It misunderstands the realities of modern litigation, which has evolved significantly in the nearly two decades since the LSA.
The Court of Appeal now has an opportunity – I would even say a responsibility – to provide clarity. Should it decline to do so, Parliament may need to revisit and modernise the statutory framework governing legal services. If the legal system is to continue leaning on the support of junior legal workers, it must also empower us.
Author: Owain Bridgeham, Apprentice Solicitor and Unregistered Barrister
Leave a Reply