Mazur and the Limits of Delegation in Litigation
Kevin Perkins | Head of Legal Defence
The legal sector welcomed clarity when the Court of Appeal recently delivered its verdict in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2026].
Prior to that, the decision threatened to complicate daily operations for law firms throughout England and Wales.
While the appellate court took a practical stance on delegation, it reiterated an essential principle: only authorised individuals may carry responsibility for the conduct of litigation.
Revisiting the High Court’s interpretation
To understand how things progressed, we need to look back at Mr Justice Sheldon’s original decision in the High Court which, when published, took many by surprise. It stated that employees without authorisation - including paralegals and legal executives (some of whom were senior litigation managers) - could not “conduct litigation” even under supervision from a qualified solicitor.
This meant the ability to undertake activities such as signing claim forms or managing caseloads could place individuals at risk under the Legal Services Act 2007, requiring firms to introduce new operational processes to ensure compliance.
The core principle remains
Whilst the Court of Appeal’s judgment is most welcome, the fundamental restriction is unchanged. Whilst delegation is permitted, unauthorised individuals cannot carry on the conduct of litigation in their own right or without appropriate supervision, and responsibility remains with the authorised person.
The ruling does not open the door for anyone with some legal training to act autonomously.
Mazur is a timely reminder of the professional standards within the law. The Court of Appeal’s decision has helped avoid operational disruption for firms but underscored the importance of supervision: it is not just best practice, but a critical safeguard against regulatory and professional risk.
Firms can delegate tasks, but accountability cannot be passed along.
