Discussion: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Coupon-mad

I'm not at all surprised.

But as it stands in 2025, this is the case law.

jd576

New guidance from the Law Society published today: https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/civil-litigation/mazur-v-charles-russell-speechlys-litigators

kryten3000

kryten3000 said:

I have heard that permission to appeal this judgment has been granted. 
I will update this post when I have a link to share. 

My source has been unable to provide any proof of this, so suggest we ignore for the moment.  

A_Geordie

kryten3000 said:

kryten3000 said:

I have heard that permission to appeal this judgment has been granted. 
I will update this post when I have a link to share. 

My source has been unable to provide any proof of this, so suggest we ignore for the moment.  

I'm not aware of permission being granted at least through my contacts and there's nothing in the appeals case tracker showing up to suggest an appeal has been made, and unless there's been an extension of time, the usual 21 day time limit for appealing has expired. 

Having said that, I would be curious on what basis permission would be granted given the position of the Law Society and the SRA and there is nothing that I can see that stands out as obvious flaws in the judgment to warrant permission to appeal. I think what we might see is new decisions taken indirectly from this judgment which will shape or define where the line is between assisting and conducting litigation. The question is, who will be the SRA's first victim. 

As an aside, there are reports coming out that CILEX is seeking to get approved status to enable their members to receive authorisation for conducting litigation, which the Legal Services Board is appearently fast-tracking. 

Nellymoser

Someone has started a petition:

Allow legal professionals to conduct litigation without being solicitors

A_Geordie

Nellymoser said:

Someone has started a petition:

Allow legal professionals to conduct litigation without being solicitors

Well that obviously won't happen. To quote the Court of Appeal in Gregory v Turner, allowing that would "drive a coach and horses through the purpose of the statute, which is to impose effective controls on rights of audience and conduct of litigation"

A_Geordie

Not sure if it has been posted already, but the Law Society has published a new practice note for guidance to solicitors on the conducting litigation following Mazur (requires sign up to read the full practice note). 

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/regulation/mazur-and-the-conduct-of-litigation

Umkomaas

A_Geordie said:

Not sure if it has been posted already, but the Law Society has published a new practice note for guidance to solicitors on the conducting litigation following Mazur (requires sign up to read the full practice note). 

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/regulation/mazur-and-the-conduct-of-litigation

‘Tick-box’ oversight from an authorised person will not be sufficient.

DCB Legal might find that difficult, even with its latest issuing with a registered solicitor 'signing' its current batch of Claim Forms!

Much of the work involved in litigation can nonetheless be carried out by non-authorised staff – either as it does not amount to the reserved activity of the conduct of litigation or as it falls within their role assisting an authorised person.

This will include activities that take place prior to proceedings being initiated. It will also generally include matters such as:

• the giving of general legal advice
• drafting pleadings, particulars of claim, applications and correspondence
• proofing witnesses
• drafting statements, and
• signing a statement of truth

Would that be correct? 🤷‍♂️

A_Geordie

Umkomaas said:

This will include activities that take place prior to proceedings being initiated. It will also generally include matters such as:

• the giving of general legal advice
• drafting pleadings, particulars of claim, applications and correspondence
• proofing witnesses
• drafting statements, and
• signing a statement of truth

Would that be correct? 🤷‍♂️

Presumably the LS are relying on BSB v O'Connor as authority for that, but also Part 22 of the CPR (Statements of Truth) says that a statement of truth can be signed by a legal representative. PD22 goes on to say that an employee of a solicitor falls within the definition of a legal representative. 

May still be up for debate in certain circumstances I think. Also if the non-authorised person has to submit a witness statement then obviously they will need to sign a statement of truth. 

Umkomaas

A_Geordie said:

Umkomaas said:

This will include activities that take place prior to proceedings being initiated. It will also generally include matters such as:

• the giving of general legal advice
• drafting pleadings, particulars of claim, applications and correspondence
• proofing witnesses
• drafting statements, and
• signing a statement of truth

Would that be correct? 🤷‍♂️

Presumably the LS are relying on BSB v O'Connor as authority for that, but also Part 22 of the CPR (Statements of Truth) says that a statement of truth can be signed by a legal representative. PD22 goes on to say that an employee of a solicitor falls within the definition of a legal representative. 

May still be up for debate in certain circumstances I think. Also if the non-authorised person has to submit a witness statement then obviously they will need to sign a statement of truth. 

Thanks @A_Geordie.  Given the more detailed and bespoke nature of its contents, I would have thought the signing off of a SoT in a WS would carry a greater weight of responsibility than having template claim POC under a auto-typed name of a solicitor on the Claim Form, especially in the conveyor belt, bulk litigation world of private parking.