The Law Society’s latest practice note on Mazur and the conduct of litigation marks a significant moment for litigation teams across England and Wales. Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur, the profession has been grappling with a deceptively simple question: who is legally allowed to “conduct” litigation, and what does that actually mean in practice?
The new guidance provides welcome reassurance—but it also serves as a clear warning that supervision must be real, documented and effective. Read the full practice note here.
A reminder: “conduct of litigation” is a reserved activity
At the heart of the issue is the fact that the conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007. Only authorised individuals—such as solicitors and appropriately authorised CILEX members—are entitled to carry it out.
Earlier court decisions had caused anxiety across the sector, particularly for firms that rely heavily on paralegals, trainees and other non‑authorised staff to run cases day‑to‑day. Some feared that routine delegation might suddenly amount to unlawful practice.
The Court of Appeal in Mazur has now confirmed that those worst‑case fears were overstated.
Delegation is permitted – responsibility is not
The key message from Mazur, reflected clearly in the Law Society’s practice note, is this:
An unauthorised person may carry out litigation tasks for and on behalf of an authorised person, provided the authorised person retains responsibility.
In other words, authorised practitioners remain the ones “conducting” the litigation, even where substantial work is delegated—as long as that delegation is properly directed, supervised and controlled.
This restores a more workable framework for modern legal practice, where teams are structured around collaboration rather than rigid silos of qualification.
Supervision is not a tick‑box exercise
That said, the guidance is equally clear that supervision must be meaningful. Simply having a solicitor’s name on the file is not enough.
The authorised person must:
- Be genuinely responsible for the matter
- Exercise professional judgment at key stages
- Ensure that delegated work is appropriate given the risks and complexity involved
- Maintain sufficient oversight to comply with professional principles
Crucially, what counts as “appropriate” supervision will vary depending on the circumstances. Routine, administrative steps may require a lighter touch, while high‑risk or strategic decisions will demand closer involvement.
Why documentation now matters more than ever
One practical implication of the practice note is the renewed importance of evidence. If regulators or courts later examine a file, firms should be able to demonstrate:
- Who the authorised person was for the matter
- What tasks were delegated
- How supervision was exercised
- Why that level of supervision was appropriate
Clear policies, well‑defined workflows and contemporaneous file notes are no longer just good practice—they are a key part of regulatory risk management.
What firms should be doing now
While firms do not need to radically restructure their litigation teams overnight, the practice note should prompt a careful review of:
- Litigation processes and role allocation
- Supervision policies and training
- File ownership and accountability
- How delegation decisions are recorded
It is also essential that authorised supervisors themselves have the competence and experience appropriate to the work they are overseeing.
A more realistic framework—if handled properly
The Law Society has described the post‑Mazur framework as “less restrictive” than earlier High Court interpretations, and rightly so. The clarification recognises the reality of how litigation is actually delivered in modern practice.
But the flexibility comes with a price: responsibility cannot be diluted. Authorised individuals remain answerable for the conduct of litigation carried out in their name.