The much-discussed Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys clarified the extent to which litigation work may be delegated to non-authorised staff. The judgment overturned the restrictive approach taken by the High Court in 2025 and confirmed that litigation-related tasks can be undertaken by unauthorised individuals, provided they act under the supervision and control of an authorised litigator.
Key principles of the ruling
There are four key principles that the ruling illustrates.
- Delegation remains lawful
Litigation tasks do not need to be performed personally by a solicitor or other authorised litigator. Paralegals, legal executives without litigation rights and other staff may undertake such work where it has been appropriately delegated.
- Supervision must be genuine and substantive
The authorised individual must provide real direction, management, supervision and control over those to whom they delegate work. They retain professional responsibility for the delegated work and cannot act merely as a nominal supervisor.
- Authorisation and competence are separate issues
A person may have the legal authority to conduct litigation but must still act within their competence and experience. Conversely, experienced non-authorised staff may undertake substantial work if properly supervised.
- Rights of audience are unaffected
The judgment does not alter existing rules governing advocacy or rights of audience.
Practical consequences for firms
As the ruling determines the validity of an approach used by many firms, it is important to understand what the practical consequences are.
- Firms can continue to use paralegals and non-authorised staff to run files and perform litigation tasks, including post-issue work, without requiring an authorised person to undertake every step personally.
- Supervisory arrangements must be robust, documented and proportionate to the complexity and risk of the work. Sampling and quality-control reviews may be acceptable in suitable cases.
- Solicitor-owned firms cannot operate on a “hands-off” basis where all litigation work is effectively left to non-authorised personnel. There must always be a degree of supervision. Those authorised to conduct litigation must remain sufficiently involved to take responsibility for the conduct of litigation.
- Regulators, particularly the SRA, are expected to issue further guidance on what constitutes adequate supervision. Firms should review current supervision protocols, delegation structures and governance arrangements in anticipation of that guidance.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal decision in Mazur provides welcome reassurance that established delegation models remain lawful, but it raises the compliance threshold for supervision. The principal risk for firms is no longer delegation itself but rather failing to demonstrate meaningful oversight by an authorised individual.
At Dyne Solicitors, we specialise in litigation. For a no-obligation chat, please contact Alex Sandland or Patrik Jones-Wright.