Mazur – Support & Resources for Members

Members will no doubt be aware of the recent case of Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys (Mazur) which is creating a lot of uncertainty over its impact on the way practices conduct litigation.

The SRA has published this response and The Law Society have published this response urging the SRA for more guidance.

Seeking member views

Bristol Law Society have been in touch with our counterparts at the Joint V Law Societies (Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester) and we are all seeking to hear from members with any concerns/ views and it will be an agenda item in our upcoming meeting.

We think the key issues are as follows and would be keen to hear members views:

• How can things be done at the right level.
• How claims with fixed costs regimes will be managed. Fixed costs regimes mean certain claim types will only be profitable if work can be done at paralegal level.  If more work needs to be done by authorised persons will this make some claims commercially unattractive and operate as a bar to access to justice.
• CILEx Regulation. Those with existing CILEx qualifications have historically been told they didn’t require litigation practice rights.
• Lack of guidance of what actually constitutes conducting litigation (Notwithstanding the guidance in paragraph 4, Schedule 2 of the Legal Services Act 2007).
• How future lawyers will be trained if they are unable to run caseloads under supervision.
• Managing existing litigation cases which claim have been signed by unauthorised persons.
• Contempt of Court or criminal liability for individuals and firms who cannot demonstrate compliance with the Legal Services Act 2007.
• How the legal profession reputation will be sffected once the Mazur cases comes to wider public attention.

We are also keen to hear of any repercussions of the Mazur case. We are aware of:

• Courts across the country using powers of adjournment on the basis of procedural irregularity i.e. signed by a paralegal, even for undefended claims.
• Possibility of firms looking to challenge cases where litigation has been done by unauthorised individuals.
• Rights of audience for court agents being challenged.

We are happy to receive views by email (which will be treated confidentially and anonymously in any feedback), or if member litigators / risk managers would feel an online roundtable might be more useful to share views and discuss collectively then we are more than happy to facilitate this and arrange a time in the coming days

Useful sources of information/commentary:

SRA

SRA | SRA Statement following the case of Julia Mazur & Ora v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP | Solicitors Regulation Authority

The Law Society

Webinar, The Law Society: Understanding Mazur and the conduct of litigation - Bristol Law Society - 3rd Nov @12-1pm

Mazur and the conduct of litigation | The Law Society (published 16/10/25)

Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys: what it means for litigators | The Law Society

CILEx

• Message to members: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys
  Statement to members about the recent High Court ruling in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys.
• CILEx Statement: Litigation Practice Rights
• Providing clarification on litigation authorisation for CILEX members following the recent High Court ruling in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys.
• FAQ: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys | CILEX

Law Society Gazette – John Hyde is providing some useful content and comments also a source of information

• • Law Society issues practice guidance on <em>Mazur</em> | Law Gazette (16/10)
  • CILEx Regulation fast-tracks bid for standalone litigation rights in <em>Mazur</em> fallout | Law Gazette (13/10)
  • Legal executive support group urges LSB to help them escape Mazur nightmare by extending litigation conduct rights | Law Gazette  (8/10)
  • CILEX backtrack: Leaked webinar reveals legal executives were misled about practising rights before Mazur bombshell | Law Gazette  (6/10)
  • Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys: What solicitors need to know | Opinion | Law Gazette  (3/10)
  • Mazur fallout: Confusion reigns as it emerges legal executives were given wrong guidance about litigation rights | Law Gazette (29/9)

 

Our Supporter Resources:

Howden Insurance Brokers  https://www.howdengroup.com/uk-en/news-insight/navigating-fallout-from-mazur-v-charles-russell-speechlys-howden-view

Member firm, Beale & Co, Lawyers Liability/ Regulatory Team walk-the-line-what-is-conducting-litigation-and-what-does-mazur-stuart-v-charles-russell-speechlys-llp-mean-for-litigation-teams-2.pdf

Paragon Costs Solutions

https://www.paragoncosts.com/site/blog/paragon-blog/mazur-and-anor-v-charles-russell-speechlys-llp or download as PDF :Mazur Guidance Note

Other useful articles:

LPC:https://www.lpc-law.co.uk/news/is-mazur-misunderstood/

 

Looking after your people

We would also like to highlight the human element in all this, and the anxiety that this Judgment and its impact may well be causing to certain members of your litigation teams who are very concerned about what this case will mean for them, both now, in the future and possibly retrospectively.  Do check in with colleagues and make sure they are feeling supported at this worrying time.

Mental Health Support can also be found at LawCare