Posted by Iain Miller, partner, and Stephen Nelson, senior associate, at City firm Kingsley Napley

Many law firms in the last few weeks have been working out the consequences of the decision in the High Court in Julia Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB).

The effect can be summarised as follows: in order to provide the reserved legal activity of ‘conduct of litigation’, not only must a firm be authorised but also the individual conducting the litigation.

It is not possible for authorised individual to ‘supervise’ an unauthorised person who is conducting the litigation but an unauthorised individual can ‘assist’ so long as the control of the strategy and direction of the litigation stays with the authorised person.

The decision has triggered many legal profe

See Full Page