Discussion: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Umkomaas

What about QDR, instructed by ZZPS acting on behalf of various Car Park Operators?  Any potential infringements?

jd576

Coupon-mad said:

This advice came from @bargepole elsewhere:

If a case goes to a hearing, raise a preliminary submission at the hearing that the Claimant's solicitors are in breach of the LSA 2007, citing Mazur as authority, and therefore under the doctrine of ex turpi causa, the Claimant should not be permitted to benefit from the illegal actions, and consequently the entire WS should be excluded from the case.

doubledotcom said:

[...]

In all those cases, the paralegal has admitted their conduct of the litigation in breach of the LSA 2007.

While I have no doubt that these bulk litigators will quickly modify the language used by their paralegals in witness statements, this surely has sweeping implications for many in-progress cases on this board where a WS has already been submitted?

If the entirety of the claimant's witness statement can be excluded, and one could argue that this will be highly likely since Mazur is binding, hard to imagine how they could prevail in any of these cases, right?

Coupon-mad

That's right!

Sections 14 to 16 of the Legal Services Act 2007 impose strict liability. Carrying on a reserved activity without entitlement is an offence. Both the individual and their employer may be liable, and unauthorised conduct may also amount to contempt of court if it misleads a judge.

We could knock them all down like skittles and I think we should concentrate in this now that the Public Consultation is closed.

There is always something new in this game of cat & mouse.

BTW they can't save it by 'modifying the language'. Basically, paralegals can't conduct litigation so it looks like every WS will have to either be signed by a solicitor or by an employee from the Claimant themselves.

This case has come out of the blue and is a bomb thrown at bulk litigation:

https://www.infolegal.co.uk/mazur-v-charles-russell-speechlys-litigation-supervision/

and

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/alarm-over-high-court-bomb-on-conduct-of-litigation

“Firms dominated by non-admitted staff, which includes many consumer firms and alternative business structures aiming to service the volume litigation markets, must now evidence how their teams are completing the work lawfully in light of this decision.

It is a new ‘record of compliance’ angle; law firms should evidence who is doing what and why, particularly in litigation, and potentially in other reserved legal activities. Compliance departments will be well advised to review what their firms are doing, seek specialist legal advice on it, and document why it is lawful.

...the consequences would be significant: “millions of pounds of wasted costs” for solicitors and the courts service, “further delays for claimants and defendants across England and Wales”, and “thousands of regulated individuals left worried about their jobs and careers”.

Andrew Hogan, a costs barrister at Kings Chambers, said the ruling “has detonated like a bomb over the profession”.

He explained: “High-volume practices that let non-admitted case-handlers sign, issue and engage the court may have to re-engineer their workflows. An authorised solicitor must own and execute the reserved steps.

“Second, there will be satellite disputes about earlier pleadings issued or signed by the ‘wrong’ person. The court in Mazur declined to strike out because the defects were now cured and strike-out would cause prejudice. But not every case will be so fortunate in timing or discretion. The risk is real.”

An SRA spokesman told Legal Futures only that the regulator “will be looking at the judgment”.

  

For me the icing on the cake is:

- it was won by a feisty female litigant in person - take a bow, Ms Mazur!

and

- it comes as a result of another crap mess of an appeal fudgement and over-generous costs award by the (IMHO awful, zero contract law background) HHJ Simpkiss, who could easily have ruined Norma Wilshaw's finances and peace of mind when he handed down a plainly wrong decision and ridiculously high costs in the infamous appeal by OPS (letting himself be led by a barrister with out of date case law and starting off - IMHO - by making it obvious which way the case was going to go).

Absolute car crash of an appeal in OPS v Wilshaw, that no judge in Sussex has viewed as persuasive, to my knowledge. She would have appealed it if she'd had deep enough pockets but she didn't, and she'd had enough after seeing that farce play out at Lewes Court, in an embarrassment of a hearing.

What goes around comes around and his incorrect judgment and another over-zealous costs award in this new case, has just torpedoed bulk parking litigation. Yay!

We can even challenge the legal reps who rock up to hearings.

Haha!

Coupon-mad

Talk about feisty:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/1999.html

jd576

Coupon-mad said:

BTW they can't save it by 'modifying the language'. Basically, paralegals can't conduct litigation so it looks like every WS will have to either be signed by a solicitor or by an employee from the Claimant themselves.

Coupon-mad said:

What goes around comes around and his incorrect judgment and another over-zealous costs award in this new case, has just torpedoed bulk parking litigation. Yay!

We can even challenge the legal reps who rock up to hearings.

Haha!

So the judgement is even more far-reaching than just making current cases unwinnable.

It has the potential to destroy the bulk parking litigation business model - if they have to pay a solicitor to turn up in court, the economic model just doesn't square. I imagine we can expect to see a lot more discontinuances.

ParkingMad

Another article discussing the Mazur v Speechlys judgment-

https://kerryunderwood.wordpress.com/2025/09/18/only-solicitors-or-exempt-people-can-conduct-litigation-not-paralegals-major-high-court-decision-you-may-need-to-re-organize-totally-your-firm/

Umkomaas

ParkingMad said:

Another article discussing the Mazur v Speechlys judgment-

https://kerryunderwood.wordpress.com/2025/09/18/only-solicitors-or-exempt-people-can-conduct-litigation-not-paralegals-major-high-court-decision-you-may-need-to-re-organize-totally-your-firm/

I wonder if this opens the door for a PPI-style compensation fest?

"This means that existing and indeed concluded cases may be re-opened if litigation was illegally conducted by a non-authorised person.

In particular there are likely to be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of cases where the party ordered to pay costs can seek to have that costs order overturned, as can the solicitors’ own clients".

Car1980

So, what is to prevent nothing changing and paralegals or non-solicitors simply signing the name of an SRA listed solicitor from their company?

Coupon-mad

But,

- 1, 2 or even 3 solicitors could not possibly (personally) check the merits of cases and conduct litigation approx 120,000 times per annum like DCB Legal do, and

- would they really want to put their name to template Statements of Truth without actually 'having conduct' given this is an offence? If this was my profession, I wouldn't put my name to claims I really knew nothing about.

I think there could well be scope for a group claim against the likes of DCB Legal, and/or individual claims for the money back and compensation for CCJs suffered.

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad said:

But,

- 1, 2 or even 3 solicitors could not possibly (personally) check the merits of cases and conduct litigation approx 120,000 times per annum like DCB Legal do, and

- would they really want to put their name to template Statements of Truth without actually 'having conduct' given this is an offence? If this was my profession, I wouldn't put my name to claims I really knew nothing about.

I think there could well be scope for a group claim against the likes of DCB Legal, and/or individual claims for the money back and compensation for CCJs suffered.

One there for Contestor and Jackson Yamba .... on the other hand, perhaps not!