Navigating the fallout from Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – Howden’s view banner

Navigating the fallout from Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – Howden’s view

  • Posted on

Published 02 October 2025

Written by Michael Blüthner Speight

Read time: 5 minutes

Introduction

On 16 September 2025, Mr Justice Sheldon handed down a judgment that has sent shockwaves through the legal profession. In Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) (“Mazur”), the High Court delivered an unequivocal ruling: mere employment by an authorised law firm does not entitle non-authorised individuals to conduct litigation, even under supervision.

The case arose from a debt recovery claim brought by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (represented by Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors) for non-payment of fees against Mrs Julia Mazur and Mr Jerome Stuart. Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart challenged the involvement of Peter Middleton, a non-qualified fee earner who had signed the Particulars of Claim and conducted virtually all of the steps in the claim.

This judgment matters because it fundamentally disrupts a widespread practice in law firms across England and Wales. For years, firms – particularly those specialising in high-volume litigation such as debt recovery, personal injury – have relied on paralegals, Chartered Legal Executives without litigation rights, trainees, and other non-qualified staff to run cases under supervision. Mazur makes clear that this model risks criminal liability under section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA), potential regulatory sanctions by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), and costs recovery challenges.

Below we examine the pre-judgment legal framework, analyse the core findings and implications of the Mazur decision, and provide recommendations for firms to ensure compliance moving forwards.  Click here to keep reading the full article