Is your claim at risk? Make sure you know who is really doing your litigation work

A recent High Court decision, Julia Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025], has clarified the limits on what staff who are not solicitors can do when assisting in litigation.

The ruling could have wide consequences for law firms that depend on paralegals and other fee earners without practising certificates to progress cases. The court held that only those who are formally authorised, such as solicitors with practising certificates, can perform reserved legal activities.

This case serves as an important reminder of the need to carry out thorough due diligence on anyone you engage to undertake debt recovery work on your behalf.

How the dispute arose

The case concerned debt recovery proceedings where the particulars of claim had been signed by Peter Middleton, the head of litigation at Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors. He did not hold a practising certificate.

The appellants argued that this rendered the proceedings defective, as conducting litigation falls within the definition of a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007. They said that Middleton, not being an authorised person, had no entitlement to take that step.

Goldsmith Bowers maintained that Middleton’s position as an employee within an authorised practice, working under supervision, meant he was entitled to act. They also noted that the SRA had previously chosen not to investigate.

Why the argument failed

Mr Justice Sheldon dismissed this reasoning. He explained that section 21 of the Act identifies who comes under the SRA’s regulatory umbrella, but it does not confer authority to undertake reserved legal activities.

In effect, staff without practising certificates can provide administrative or practical support to solicitors, but they cannot themselves exercise the professional judgment required in conducting litigation. That role is strictly limited to authorised individuals. The judge also highlighted that it is a criminal offence for a firm to allow an unauthorised employee to perform reserved legal work.

What lessons can businesses learn from this case?

For businesses looking to instruct solicitors to handle debt recovery, the Mazur ruling underlines the importance of ensuring that the person carrying out the work is properly authorised. If proceedings are issued or critical litigation steps are taken by someone who is not entitled to act, there is a risk that claims could be challenged, delayed, or even struck out.

Before instructing a firm, businesses should take some straightforward steps to protect themselves. First, ask who will have day-to-day responsibility for your matter and whether that individual is an authorised solicitor or another legally qualified professional. Secondly, check who will be signing key documents, such as particulars of claim, these must always be signed off by someone with the right to conduct litigation or a senior employee/director of the Claimant. Finally, ensure the firm can explain how paralegals or trainees are supervised, so you can be confident that support staff are assisting rather than taking decisions that could put your claim at risk.

Ian Carson, Head of Dispute Resolution at Harper James, comments:

This decision makes clear that there is a real distinction between being regulated by the SRA and being authorised to carry out reserved legal activities. For clients, the lesson is to be sure who is actually responsible for your claim. It should always be an authorised solicitor, even where paralegals and trainees are involved in support.