Shockwaves from Mazur: Can Trainees still ‘Conduct Litigation?’

For postgraduate law students, the path to qualification could be about to change dramatically. A recent High Court ruling in Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP(2025), has sent shockwaves through the legal training world, with Catherine Fisher, Managing Partner, of Morr & Co. commenting that Mazur, “quietly drops a bit of a bombshell.” Mazur redefines how UK law firms can use ‘non-qualified’ staff in litigation. This case is more than a regulatory footnote: it’s a reminder of what it really means to “conduct litigation” and why professional status still matters in a profession where delegation of day-to-day legal litigation tasks has become routine.  

The ruling stemmed from a dispute over who, in law, is entitled to “conduct litigation”. The case arose after legal documents in a debt-recovery claim were issued and signed by an employee of a law firm who did not hold a practising certificate. The court found that, despite being employed and supervised within a regulated firm, that person had conducted litigation.

Under the Legal Services Act 2007, conducting litigation is a ‘reserved legal activity’, meaning only authorised individuals like solicitors or barristers are legally permitted to do so.

Crucially, the court held that employment within a regulated firm does not itself automatically confer authorisation. Supervision or oversight by a qualified solicitor cannot legitimise unauthorised conduct. Consequently, the costs award in the underlying case was overturned, prompting firms nationwide to review who actually has ‘conduct’ of their litigation.

The precedent not only clarified the law but served as a wake-up call, signalling that in modern practice, titles still carry weight and qualifications remain the key to legitimacy.

Many firms, especially those handling high-volume litigation, rely heavily on paralegals, caseworkers, and trainees to progress files. Mazur draws a clear line between assisting with litigation and conducting it. Drafting documents, preparing bundles, or liaising with clients can all be part of valuable learning, but decisions about issuing proceedings, signing pleadings, or making strategic calls must rest with someone authorised.

There has been a mixed response across the legal profession. While many commentators have stressed that Mazur did not alter the underlying law, the Legal Services Act 2007 remains unchanged, it has undeniably reshaped how firms interpret and apply it in practice.

The Law Society has urged firms to keep detailed records of decision-making and supervision, highlighting that the case reinforces the importance of transparency and accountability.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has remained relatively quiet, only issuing a statement on 1^st October suggesting the judgment “doesn’t change the law”, and effectively sidestepping any suggestion that it bore responsibility for issuing incorrect guidance.

Meanwhile, Howden Solicitors described the judgment as a “seismic shift” in the way litigation work is delegated and managed.

Whether seen as a clarification or a wake-up call, one thing is clear: Mazur has prompted firms to re-evaluate their working practices and compliance frameworks.

The traditional model of trainees ‘cutting their teeth’ by running cases under ‘supervision’, a long-established rite of passage, could now be at an end. Michael Speight, divisional director of the Howden Insurance legal practices group, observed: “The days of routinely permitting paralegals, trainees, and other non-qualified staff to conduct litigation- even under supervision – are over.” Firms may now hesitate before assigning trainees hands-on case managements responsibilities, significantly limiting their exposure to substantive litigation work prior to qualification.  

The implications extend beyond training quality: firms may face increased operational costs and timeline delays, while clients could see fee structures change as work is undertaken by fully qualified staff.

For law students, this case delivers a stark message: the solicitors title still carries genuine legal weight, not merely a symbolic value. It represents a statutory gateway that controls access to specific categories of work. When applying for training contracts or paralegal roles, candidates must now ask critical questions: Who will have conduct of the cases I work on? What supervision structures are in place? Will I gain meaningful litigation experience, or will my role be confined to research and document preparation? The Mazur ruling may lead firms to tighten these systems, fundamentally reshaping what training contracts looks like in practice.

This ruling arrives at a particularly challenging time for the legal profession. Law firms are already grappling with the impact of the new Employment Rights Bill and the recent hike in National Insurance Contributions. Training contracts are increasingly competitive with fewer positions available. The Mazur decision adds another headwind to an already pressured sector.

The critical question facing the profession is not just one of regulatory compliance, but whether these new constraints will make it harder for talented graduates to gain the practical experience needed to thrive as the next generation of solicitors.