Court of Appeal rules that non-authorised persons can conduct litigation, reversing Mazure
In a lengthy judgement given today, the Court of Appeal found that the High Court previously reached the incorrect decision in Mazur. Whilst acknowledging the difficulties faced by the previous judges, the Court of Appeal returned to the previous and long-standing position, which is that non-authorised persons are allowed to conduct litigation, if supervised.
Background
Solicitors are authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to act on behalf of clients, but the legal industry has long relied on ‘non-authorised’ persons, such as paralegals, trainee solicitors and other staff, to assist where needed – even in complex cases such as litigation. Typically, certain tasks are carried out by the non-authorised person, and the authorised person (solicitor) supervises.
However, this position changed in September 2025. Two clients, Mazur and Stuart, had previously instructed a law firm to work on their matter, but upon finding out that the staff member assigned to their case was not a qualified solicitor, they were dissatisfied.
They contacted the SRA, who initially declined to investigate. The SRA’s position was that the law firm itself was authorised and therefore its employees, some of whom were not, could still undertake such work.
However, when Mazur and Stuart raised the issue in court, the High Court ruled in their favour. Litigation, according to the High Court, could no longer be done by a non-authorised person – even if it was under supervision.
The SRA and Law Society subsequently updated their practice notes; however, there was still widespread concern about the future of the legal industry. Many solicitors are exceptionally busy and delegating where appropriate can benefit clients by progressing their cases in a timely way whilst reducing fees, which tend to increase depending on the qualifications and experience level of their legal counsel. The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX), which offers Chartered Legal Executive status as an alternative to the traditional solicitor title, decided to challenge the High Court’s ruling and appealed to the Court of Appeal.
New judgment
On 31 March 2026, the Court of Appeal reversed the position on Mazur. In the judgement, they noted that at its foundation, the issue was the proper meaning of the phrase “carry on the conduct of litigation” as used in the Legal Services Act 2007 (para 1).
The term litigation is complex. It encompasses “issuing proceedings before any court in England and Wales” but also the commencement, prosecution, and defence of such proceedings, for example, witness statements.
Notably, certain things are “unlikely” to be conducting litigation (para 193):
- Pre-litigation work
- Giving legal advice regarding court proceedings
- Conducting correspondence with the opposing party, on behalf of clients
- Gathering evidence
- Instructing and liaising with experts and counsel
- Signing a statement of truth in respect of a statement of case
- Signing any other document that the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) permits to be signed by a legal representative, as defined by CPR Part 2.3.
For activities that fall under term litigation, the Court of Appeal found that the conduct of litigation simply refers to “tasks” to be undertaken. Importantly, paralegals and other non-authorised persons should be allowed to do these under supervision:
“An unauthorised person may 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 appropriately authorised CILEX member, provided the authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person (both formal responsibility and the responsibilities identified at section 1(3) of the 2007 Act). In that situation, the authorised individual is the person carrying on the conduct of litigation.
The delegation of tasks by the authorised individual to the unauthorised person requires proper direction, management supervision and control, the details of which are a matter for the regulators. The authorised individual must put in place appropriate arrangements. The degree of appropriate control and supervision will always depend on the circumstances (para 187).
As such, the Court of Appeal left it up to the regulators – the SRA and the Law Society – to define the appropriate arrangements.
A key aspect is how much involvement the authorised person has. Are they actually delegating, or is the non-authorised person carrying out the work and making the decisions? As Lady Justice Andrews noted, “the question in any given set of circumstances will be whether the unauthorised person, in carrying out whatever tasks which fall within the scope of “conduct of litigation” have been delegated to him or her, is in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual. If they are, it is the authorised individual who is conducting the litigation. But if the reality is that the litigation is not being conducted by the unauthorised person for and on behalf of the authorised individual, they will be committing an offence” (para 198).
What’s next?
This return to the previous position should make it easier and more cost effective for both clients and firms – particularly those that are involved with legal aid or pro bono cases, as qualified solicitors can now free up more time by carefully delegating and supervising other staff.
The Law Society and the SRA have promised to update their guidance as soon as possible to comply with the ruling and ensure clarity for everyone working in the legal industry.
It should be noted that although the position has now been reversed (and a non-authorised person can in fact conduct litigation under supervision), we would expect the new guidance to have a clearer definition of what “supervision” and “delegation” looks like in practice, in order to manage client expectations, protect their interests, and make it easier to legal firms to ensure compliance.
By Tiffany Carpenter