Updated Guidance for NALP Members regarding Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys

Further Updated Guidance for NALP Members and Centres following the Court of Appeal Judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys and Others [2026] EWHC Civ 369  

1. Purpose of this Guidance 

This Guidance considers the important judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal on 31^st March 2026 and the impact this has on the previous Guidance provided by NALP following the High Court decision on 19^th November 2025.  

This Note should be read in conjunction with our previous guidance.  

2. The Court of Appeal decision 

This decision was heard by three judges: Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls; Sir Colin Birrs, Chancellor of the High Court and Lady Justice Andrews. The leading judgment was given by Sir Colin Birrs with whom the other two judges agreed. This Note will focus on that leading judgment. 

The Chancellor helpfully summarised his ruling in Paras 25 to 27 of a 45-page judgment. The key aspects of this and those which directly impact NALP Members are: 

• An unauthorised person can (emphasis added) lawfully perform any tasks, which are within the scope of the conduct of litigation, for and on behalf of an authorised individual such as a solicitor or other appropriately authorised member. 

• The authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person. The authorised individual is, therefore, the person carrying on the conduct of litigation. The unauthorised person is not carrying on the conduct of litigation and therefore does not commit a criminal offence (emphasis added) under the Legal Services Act 2007. 

• The delegation of tasks by the authorised individual to the unauthorised person requires proper management supervision and control, the details of which are a matter for the regulators. 

• In some circumstances the degree of appropriate control and supervision will be high, with approval required before things are done. In other, for example routine, circumstances, a lower level of control and supervision will be required. In such cases, it may be sufficient for the authorised individual to conduct regular meetings with the unauthorised person and to sample their work. 

• The degree of prior approval contended for by the Law Society and Solicitors Regulation Authority in this appeal is not (emphasis added) required by the Legal Services Act 2007. In short, provided the authorised individual puts in place appropriate arrangements for supervision of and delegation to unauthorised persons, those persons may (emphasis added) perform tasks that amount to the conduct of litigation for and on behalf of (emphasis added) the authorised individual. The authorised individual retains the responsibility envisaged by the 2007 Act. 

• The result of this case means that the role of an unauthorised person in the context of the conduct of litigation is not (emphasis added) limited merely to assisting or supporting an authorised individual, and the distinction drawn in the High Court by the Law Society and Solicitors Regulation Authority, and adopted by the judge, between (a) supporting (or assisting) and (b) conducting litigation under supervision was not correct. 

• To sum up: It is not unlawful for an unauthorised person to act for and on behalf of an authorised individual to conduct litigation under their supervision, provided the authorised individual puts in place appropriate arrangements for the supervision of and delegation to the unauthorised person (emphasis added). 

3. What does this mean for NALP Members? 

This decision means that: 

• Authorised persons have always been able to delegate tasks to those they work alongside – including paralegals. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Legal Services Act 2007 was not intended to change that position. 

• This judgment now provides guidance not only on the ability of authorised persons to delegate tasks but also on the scope of litigation itself. 

• The critical outcome of this judgment is: an unauthorised person can lawfully conduct litigation as long as they do so under the appropriate supervision of an authorised individual.  

• NALP’s position therefore remains unchanged.  As NALP has always stated, a paralegal can carry out tasks relating to the conduct of litigation as long as they are properly supervised by an authorised individual and everything is signed off by that authorised person. 

• NALP maintains that 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.  

4. For NALP Members with a Licence to Practise, i.e., 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. In other words, all official documents and letters drafted on behalf of a client must be signed by the client (not the paralegal) and contact with the opposing party and the court must be done by the client (not through the paralegal).