Discussion: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Spirity

The law firm / dect collection company ringing me again while I read this.  I was wary of including my personal telephone number in the DQ but it asks for it and I reluctantly gave it so a Mediator to call me - I really did t want loads of calls from DCBL, which my Samsung Phone pre warns me Suspected Spam. 

I now need to try and find out if Lorraine the Administration Associate at DCBL, who emailed me Without Prejudice in March 2025 offering to settle at £100, has any legal qualifications.

Duke1999

Spirity said:

The law firm / dect collection company ringing me again while I read this.  I was wary of including my personal telephone number in the DQ but it asks for it and I reluctantly gave it so a Mediator to call me - I really did t want loads of calls from DCBL, which my Samsung Phone pre warns me Suspected Spam. 

I now need to try and find out if Lorraine the Administration Associate at DCBL, who emailed me Without Prejudice in March 2025 offering to settle at £100, has any legal qualifications.

Look at the first page of this thread I believe car1980 posted a list of DCB Legal SRA solicitors 

Spirity

Thanks Duke1999.  I will do that now.  I have just done a person search at SRA website with 'No people found for '..  

doubledotcom

Umkomaas said:

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

I don't think you'll get any assistance from Jackson on this matter. He is trying to gather up support for an appeal against the Mazur judgment.

This is his view on the matter...

Why Mazur is Wrong on Exempt Persons under the Legal Services Act 2007

Mazur’s interpretation of exempt persons under the Legal Services Act 2007 doesn’t hold up.

Schedule 3, para 2 makes it clear: an exempt person is someone who, though not authorised, has been granted permission “by or under an enactment” to carry on a reserved legal activity.

The Civil Procedure Act 1997 and the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) are such enactments. Importantly, CPR 2.3 defines a legal representative broadly — including not just solicitors and barristers, but also employees.

That means employees conducting litigation under the CPR are recognised as legal representatives and therefore fall within the statutory definition of exempt persons.

Mazur’s argument misses this crucial point: the interaction between the LSA 2007 and the CPR clearly gives employees standing to act. Ignoring this framework leads to a legally unsustainable conclusion.

He has written a 4 page missive on why it is wrong over on LinkedIn: Here

Duke1999

I believe @doubledotcom previously shared a draft email intended for DCB Legal, requesting clarification on who did what. While it's unlikely DCB Legal will respond, sending it could still serve as a useful preliminary step if the matter proceeds to court.

Umkomaas

doubledotcom said:

Umkomaas said:

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

I don't think you'll get any assistance from Jackson on this matter. He is trying to gather up support for an appeal against the Mazur judgment.

This is his view on the matter...

Why Mazur is Wrong on Exempt Persons under the Legal Services Act 2007

Mazur’s interpretation of exempt persons under the Legal Services Act 2007 doesn’t hold up.

Schedule 3, para 2 makes it clear: an exempt person is someone who, though not authorised, has been granted permission “by or under an enactment” to carry on a reserved legal activity.

The Civil Procedure Act 1997 and the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) are such enactments. Importantly, CPR 2.3 defines a legal representative broadly — including not just solicitors and barristers, but also employees.

That means employees conducting litigation under the CPR are recognised as legal representatives and therefore fall within the statutory definition of exempt persons.

Mazur’s argument misses this crucial point: the interaction between the LSA 2007 and the CPR clearly gives employees standing to act. Ignoring this framework leads to a legally unsustainable conclusion.

He has written a 4 page missive on why it is wrong over on LinkedIn: Here

I do realise that, hence my ironic '.... on the other hand, perhaps not!' 😊

jd576

doubledotcom said:

He has written a 4 page missive on why it is wrong over on LinkedIn: Here

His overriding objection seems to be that it renders "volume litigation" uneconomical and imposes a much higher compliance burden, and for that he marshals an array of technical points.

Just because it's the "norm in commercial debt recovery" doesn't mean that it's right. DCB Legal is a clear example of a firm who blatantly abuses the legal process with their low-cost litigation model. I seem to recall looking at @Umkomaas thread that we're now up to well over 600 cases discontinued by DCB Legal. If that isn't an abuse of the legal process, hard to imagine what would qualify as such.

From my rather limited understanding of the legal services industry, I can only see this as a good thing for consumers, unless I'm mistaken?

Is it really going to affect legitimate debt collection that much, or is it just going to make it less economical for a subset of (mostly bulk parking litigator) firms to shakedown consumers through business models that depend on the majority of their victims capitulating irrespective of the merits of the case.

Castle

doubledotcom said:

Umkomaas said:

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

I don't think you'll get any assistance from Jackson on this matter. He is trying to gather up support for an appeal against the Mazur judgment.

This is his view on the matter...

Why Mazur is Wrong on Exempt Persons under the Legal Services Act 2007

Mazur’s interpretation of exempt persons under the Legal Services Act 2007 doesn’t hold up.

Schedule 3, para 2 makes it clear: an exempt person is someone who, though not authorised, has been granted permission “by or under an enactment” to carry on a reserved legal activity.

The Civil Procedure Act 1997 and the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) are such enactments. Importantly, CPR 2.3 defines a legal representative broadly — including not just solicitors and barristers, but also employees.

That means employees conducting litigation under the CPR are recognised as legal representatives and therefore fall within the statutory definition of exempt persons.

Mazur’s argument misses this crucial point: the interaction between the LSA 2007 and the CPR clearly gives employees standing to act. Ignoring this framework leads to a legally unsustainable conclusion.

He has written a 4 page missive on why it is wrong over on LinkedIn: Here

By definition, "employees" would include cleaners, caretakers and work experience school kids for example.

Car1980

The problem there is that both the Law Society and the SRA never came up with that argument, even after two rounds of submissions.

Duke1999

I struggle to see the justification for allowing firms like DCB Legal who routinely pursue individuals through the county court system only to withdraw at the eleventh hour. Measures that prevent the courts from being used to intimidate consumers are not only beneficial for those consumers, but also for the integrity of the judicial process. It's time to put an end to this kind of racket.