Discussion: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Bazarius

I agree on all points 

RogerW_3

doubledotcom said:

DCB Legal issue thousands of claims monthly, suggesting an annual volume well into the many tens of thousands—raising serious questions about whether a single solicitor like John Croot, who now signs all N1 Claim Forms, could lawfully and practically oversee, sign and submit each one.

DCB Legal is one of only three County Court “Super Users”, meaning they have privileged access to bulk claim issuance via the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC). They state on their website that they issue “thousands of claims monthly”, which conservatively implies at least 24,000–36,000 annually, though anecdotal evidence and industry estimates suggest the figure may be well over 100,000 per year.

The Mazur v CRS LLP ruling reaffirmed that “conduct of litigation” under the Legal Services Act 2007 must be performed by a regulated person with appropriate authorisation. This includes signing and submitting claim forms, which are considered reserved legal activities.

Mr Croot is one of only four regulated solicitors overseeing litigation at DCB Legal, and it raises a procedural red flag. Can one solicitor realistically sign and submit tens of thousands of claims annually? Can only four solicitors even do so? If not, who else is conducting litigation—and are they authorised?

Even if we assume DCB Legal issues a modest 25,000 claims per year, and they employ only four SRA-regulated solicitors, that equates to 6,250 claims per solicitor annually—or ~24 claims per working day. But this raw math ignores the actual scope of “conduct of litigation”, which includes far more than just signing claim forms. Under the Legal Services Act 2007 and confirmed in Mazur v CRS LLP, conduct of litigation encompasses the following reserved activities that a solicitor must oversee:

• Reviewing particulars of claim for accuracy and compliance with CPR
• Ensuring pre-action protocol compliance, especially for consumer claims
• Signing and submitting claim forms—a reserved legal activity
• Responding to court directions and correspondence
• Supervising paralegals and admin staff involved in litigation prep
• Managing hearings, adjournments, and enforcement proceedings
• Handling procedural irregularities, strike-outs, and defence rebuttals

Even in a high-efficiency litigation firm, a solicitor might realistically handle 5–10 claims per day with proper oversight. Anything beyond that risks rubber-stamping, lack of supervision, or unauthorised delegation. At 24 claims/day, each solicitor would need to, sign and submit claims at industrial speed, skip meaningful review or supervision, thereby breaching SRA Principles on integrity, competence, and supervision.

This workload is not just implausible—it’s procedurally incompatible with lawful conduct of litigation. If unregulated staff are preparing or submitting claims, DCB Legal may be systemically breaching the Legal Services Act. The firm risks SRA enforcement for unauthorised litigation conduct.

So, even at only 25,000 claims/year, the workload per solicitor exceeds lawful capacity. Given the scope of conduct of litigation confirmed in Mazur, it is not credible that four solicitors can personally oversee, sign, and submit this volume without breaching reserved activity rules. This demands urgent SRA investigation into systemic unauthorised litigation conduct.

Anyone care to submit the question to the SRA?

Given that Sarah Ensall, who is not authorised to litigate, has been filing a large number of Claims POC that state an unreferenced PCN was issued on a date when no PCN was issued, which would also seem to cause a falsified statement of truth and a non-compliance with SRA Code of Conduct Section 1.4, which registered solicitor at DCB Legal is going to put his/her head on the falsification chopping block and re-validate a large number of false Claims?

Especially after a defence (and possibly also a witness statement) has identified that false/untruthful POC statement and there has been a failure to request court permission to file amended/corrected POC before any witness statement  has been filed (probably also by a DCB Legal employee who is not authorised to litigate)? 

Perhaps a very big mess that will be the undoing of a large number of Excel/DCB Legal template claims and potentially result in very serious SRA disciplinary action? Will DCB Legal/Excel discontinue a large number of such false claims to avoid a massive costly and time consuming headache?

Form N180 probably also filed by a DCB Legal employee who is not authorised to litigate. They certainly used unauthorised employees to serve me with copies of both N180 and Excel witness statement, so I very much doubt that Croot or another register solicitor filed them in court.

Can such unauthorised witness statement filing now be re-validated by a registered solicitor or should a witness statement filed by an employee who is not authorised to litigate be struck out?

RogerW_3

Car1980 said:

Duke1999 said:

The judge in my recent case didn’t take kindly to Scott Wilson claiming he might not attend, knowing full well he had no intention of showing up, and then having the audacity to request costs for an advocate.

Yes. As i've said, he's signed a statement of truth. To claim he "may not" be able to intend every time when he's has zero intention is contemptuous.

Witness statements by the likes of Burgess and Wilson stating that they may not be able to attend (when they do not yet have knowledge of any hearing date but have had the opportunity to declare dates when they are unavailable in Form N180) would seem to be a deliberate non-compliance with Section 27.1 of IPC Code of Practice Version 9. Without strict compliance with Section 27.1 they had no reasonable cause to request keeper details from DVLA and no valid basis to issue a parking charge or a claim, so potentially there is an argument that can be made in court that a claim and witness statement should be struck out on that code non-compliance basis if they fail to show up at the hearing for cross-examination on their witness statement. For strict compliance with 27.1 in the event they are unable to attend they should either request a new hearing date (with an acceptable excuse) or discontinue the claim.

kryten3000

According to the Law Society Gazette, CILEX have requested permission to appeal the Mazur ruling:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/cilex-to-appeal-seismic-mazur-ruling/5125143.article

Coupon-mad

kryten3000 said:

According to the Law Society Gazette, CILEX have requested permission to appeal the Mazur ruling:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/cilex-to-appeal-seismic-mazur-ruling/5125143.article

Thought they would. Interesting!

ChirpyChicken

kryten3000 said:

According to the Law Society Gazette, CILEX have requested permission to appeal the Mazur ruling:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/cilex-to-appeal-seismic-mazur-ruling/5125143.article

Good 
Its caused a lot of unease. I have no doubt they will get permission to appeal.

Interesting times ahead

doubledotcom

Mazur is not some bold new development; it simply re-states what the Legal Services Act has always required. Conduct of litigation by an unauthorised person is prohibited. 

If CILeX wants that position changed, that is a matter for Parliament to amend the LSA, not for the courts to ‘clarify’ it. It will be interesting to see if they are allowed to appeal it and on what basis.

kryten3000

doubledotcom said:

If CILeX wants that position changed, that is a matter for Parliament to amend the LSA, not for the courts to ‘clarify’ it. It will be interesting to see if they are allowed to appeal it and on what basis.

I agree. One of the comments on the article says: 

'I think they will struggle with an appeal, if permitted to do so. The Mazur decision was a straightforward interpretation of the existing law. As was mentioned in the Gazette last week "The only realistic immediate option is to apply for independent practice rights". Not that difficult or costly. Get on and do it.

If you already know what you are doing/have the experience then the portfolio or assessment route is not too onerous. If you need training and assessment then arguably you shouldn't have been conducting the litigation in the first place.'

ChirpyChicken

CILEX have been given permission to appeal
Appeal will be heard by 2027 at the latest hopefully a lot sooner
https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/court-of-appeal-agrees-to-hear-important-mazur-appeal