Mazur Ruling Reversed: Supervised Non Authorised Persons Permitted to Conduct Litigation

The landmark judgment by the Court of Appeal is a widely anticipated and widely welcome ruling. Moving forward, there are likely to be major litigation ramifications for law firms as the judgment restores previously established delegation models. As a result of the overturning, non‑authorised persons are permitted to conduct litigation tasks, provided they operate under the supervision and responsibility of an authorised individual. There was widespread uncertainty in the legal sector following the original Mazur decision as it effectively prohibited paralegals, trainees, legal executives and other non‑authorised personnel from undertaking certain litigation tasks, even if they were supervised by an authorised person. Several firms raised complaints that the ruling threatened to increase costs and prevent holistic training for next generation lawyers.

The debate revolved around a few key issues, including the phrase ‘carry on the conduct of litigation’ and what exactly this means. The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) successfully argued that the distinction lies between performing litigation tasks and being responsible for them. The result is that tasks may be delegated to a non‑authorised person, provided an authorised person retains overall control and responsibility. In those circumstances, it is the authorised person who is legally ‘carrying on’ the conduct of the litigation.

The case also centred on what acts constitute litigation, but the Court of Appeal felt unable to give a comprehensive definition and such classification will be heavily dependent on context.

The judgment upheld that the delegation of tasks to non-authorised persons was a logical way of carrying on business and was not in violation of the 2007 Act. Delegation never impeded the professional obligations on solicitors, including duties of competence, integrity, and client confidentiality. Parliament, the Court reasoned, must have intended for such practices to continue under the 2007 Act.

For law firms, the outcome reaffirms the ability to use paralegals and legal executives efficiently in litigation and ensure standards, obligations and safeguards are upheld as authorised persons maintain oversight and responsibility. For clients, the judgment promises greater cost efficiency and new opportunities due to increased capacity within firms.