Guidance Sheet for NALP Members in relation to the High Court Judgment in the case of Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys (2025)
This judgment is only relevant to one reserved legal activity: the ‘conduct of litigation’.
The judgment effectively does not change the legal requirement as stated in the Legal Services Act 2007, that to ‘conduct litigation’ a person must be ‘authorised’ to do so.
An ‘authorised person’ is someone who has been given permission by a relevant approved regulator to carry out a reserved legal activity.
This decision confirmed that a non-authorised employee cannot be permitted to conduct litigation even if supervised by an authorised person. In this case, the employee signed all court documents and letters in his own name.
What this means currently for Litigation Paralegals working in Law Firms
As a paralegal you can support the litigation process, but you are not allowed to ‘conduct’ it even if you are permitted to do so by your employer who may be an authorised person. In this respect, nothing has changed. In practice, this means that you can do all the research, write all the letters and draft all documents but all of these must ultimately be signed by an authorised person (solicitor) and not by you, the supporting paralegal.
What this means for Litigation Paralegals working for themselves
Nothing has changed. All court documents and letters during the litigation process which you can draft, must be signed by the client as a litigant in person.
Will there be a rippling effect in relation to other ‘reserved activities’?
This is currently a grey area and under review as there are ongoing discussions between the legal regulators as to the far-reaching consequences (if any) of this judgment and how to deal with it, as well as whether it may affect other activities that are currently reserved.
NB. Watch this space as the decision in this case may well be appealed.
