The price of justice: why unqualified staff can’t litigate Catherine Fisher discusses the impact of today’s judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025]EWHC 2341 (KB) As is so often the way with High Court judgments, today’s decision in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority and the Law Society intervening) quietly drops a bit of a bombshell. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2025/2341.html It’s likely to have a significant impact on the way many law firms run their business. I’m talking about law firms who use unqualified staff to run litigation, under the supervision (sometimes good, sometimes poor) of a solicitor. The advent of the fixed costs regimes for lower value and less complex cases has meant that many law firms can only stay in business by employing less expensive, unqualified staff to litigate these claims. This is particularly prevalent in firms specialising in debt collection, where there seems to have been a consumer-driven race to the bottom for services, offering a £10 Letter before action. Today’s decision makes it clear that the Legal Services Act 2007 prohibits an unqualified person from conducting litigation, even if she works for a firm that is regulated (by the SRA) and even if she is supervised by a solicitor. What she can do is to support a solicitor who is conducting litigation, and that is a question of fact and degree. Relevant factors include who drafts or approves important documents, who takes responsibility for formal steps, who is the person who directs the case and makes important decisions about its direction and strategy. An unqualified person who conducts litigation commits a criminal offence, as does the employer, even if the employer is regulated and authorised to conduct litigation. Mr Justice Sheldon cited with approval the submissions of the SRA, who told the court that it was a matter of the highest public interest that those conducting litigation are “fit and proper persons who are appropriately qualified and regulated. This is necessary… to secure public confidence in the administration of justice, to protect the public and consumers of legal services, and to ensure high standards of competence and propriety in the profession.” I am not the first to bemoan the fact that the enthusiasm of our regulatory body and Governments of various stripe for lower prices and greater consumer choice, has led to a dilution of protection for consumers. If you want to be represented by a qualified, regulated, insured, reputable, up-to-date, caring and competent solicitor, you will have to pay a price for that service that reflects the quality of the person who is representing you. How can Morr & Co help? If you have any questions or would like any further information on the content of this article, please do not hesitate to contact our Dispute Resolution team on 0333 038 9100 or email info@morrlaw.com and a member of our expert team will get back to you. Disclaimer Although correct at the time of publication, the contents of this newsletter/blog are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute, legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article. Please contact us for the latest legal position. Authored by Catherine Fisher Managing Partner Message Tags Insights On this page Contact our team today to find out more Contact us
