The Mazur ruling likely came about because the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA) inadvertently failed to codify what had been custom in the legal profession for a long time, two experts have argued.

Writing for Legal Futures today, Iain Miller and Stephen Nelson of City law firm Kingsley Napley said explanatory notes to the LSA were clear that it was not intended to change the position that non-authorised people could conduct litigation under the supervision of authorised lawyers, “but following Mazur it has inadvertently had that effect”.

Mr Miller, a partner, is also the general editor of the textbook Cordery on Legal Services , while Mr Nelson, a senior associate, was until earlier this year the head of legal at the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Exploring the history of the right to c

See Full Page