The Law Society of England and Wales has published a new practice note for litigation solicitors after the Mazur judgment raised fresh concerns about who can lawfully conduct litigation work. The decision has stirred unease across the sector because it highlights the risk that unqualified staff may not undertake key litigation steps, even when senior lawyers supervise them. Firms that rely on paralegals and trainees to drive cases now face urgent questions about workflows, job titles, and who signs or files court documents. The guidance seeks to steady the ground beneath litigation teams by setting out practical safeguards and pointing lawyers back to the core rules on reserved legal activities. Practitioners say the note arrives at a critical time, as courts and regulators place sharper focus on compliance and accountability in day?to?day case management.
Context and timing
The Law Society published the practice note in England and Wales in mid?October 2025. The move follows months of discussion in the profession about the Mazur decision and its impact on supervised work in litigation teams. Industry outlets reported the new guidance on 20 October 2025.
What the Mazur decision puts under the spotlight
The Mazur judgment has drawn attention to a long?standing rule: the “conduct of litigation” is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007. Only authorised persons, such as solicitors and certain other regulated lawyers, may carry out reserved activities. The ruling has sharpened concerns that supervision alone does not convert an unqualified or unauthorised person into someone who can lawfully take reserved steps. That distinction matters because routine case tasks often blur into reserved territory.
Litigation teams often delegate work to paralegals, trainees, and other support staff. The Mazur ruling has made many firms revisit which acts count as the “conduct of litigation.” Courts and procedural rules have long treated formal steps—such as issuing a claim, acknowledging service, filing a defence, signing a statement of truth, or serving documents in prescribed ways—as reserved. Drafting and preparing may not, on their own, cross that line, but signing and taking the formal step typically do. The judgment has prompted managers to map those boundaries clearly and document who does what on the file.
What the Law Society practice note seeks to clarify
The Law Society’s practice note aims to guide solicitors on how to manage risk after Mazur. It points practitioners to the Legal Services Act 2007, the Civil Procedure Rules, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Standards and Regulations. It also highlights the distinction between work that an unqualified staff member may help prepare, and steps that an authorised person must undertake. The guidance underscores that proper supervision remains essential, but supervision cannot grant authorisation for reserved activities.
The note encourages firms to identify tasks that amount to conducting litigation and to assign those tasks to authorised individuals. It also steers teams to check who signs claims, statements of case, certificates of service, and statements of truth, because the rules expect either the party or an authorised legal representative to sign those documents. The guidance ties these checks to practical controls on files, templates, and workflows, so teams can meet deadlines without breaching the law.
Supervision, titles, and the limits of delegation
Firms rely on a pyramid of staff to deliver litigation work. The practice note recognises that reality and sets out how firms can supervise in a compliant way. Senior solicitors can oversee research, drafting, and file management by junior staff. But they must step in to take any reserved step themselves or ensure another authorised person does so. The guidance stresses that teams should record that handover on the file and keep clear audit trails.
Job titles also matter. Firms must not describe staff in ways that suggest they hold authorisation when they do not. The rules protect the titles “solicitor” and “authorised litigator.” Misleading titles or email signatures can confuse clients and courts and can trigger regulatory action. The practice note therefore urges clarity in how firms describe roles to clients, opponents, and the court, particularly when junior staff communicate on the file.
Legal framework and the risks of non?compliance
The Legal Services Act 2007 sets out six reserved legal activities, including the conduct of litigation. Section 14 makes it a criminal offence to carry on a reserved legal activity when not entitled. The SRA Standards and Regulations also require firms to ensure proper supervision and to deliver services in a way that upholds the rule of law and the proper administration of justice. If a non?authorised person takes a reserved step, the courts may impose costs sanctions, the regulator may investigate, and the firm may face reputational damage. In serious cases, breaches can amount to contempt of court.
Civil Procedure Rules add further guardrails. They define a legal representative as a person authorised to conduct litigation. They also require a statement of truth on statements of case and witness statements, signed by the party or an authorised legal representative. These rules exist to ensure accountability for filings and to deter abuse of process. The practice note reflects these requirements by urging firms to verify who signs and files key documents.
Practical steps for litigation teams now
The guidance signals that firms should act now. Teams should audit live and closed files to identify who took each reserved step. They should review precedents and templates to flag any fields that call for an authorised signature. They should also check case management systems to ensure they assign deadlines for issuing, service, acknowledgments, and applications to authorised individuals. Training updates can help junior staff understand the line between preparation and formal procedural acts.
The practice note also encourages firms to check their terms of business and client care letters. Clear explanations of roles, supervision, and charging help clients understand who will do their work and why. Firms should ensure that time records show when an authorised person reviewed and approved documents and took any reserved steps. That record supports compliance and helps resolve any later challenge about who acted and when.
Implications for in?house teams and unregulated providers
The guidance does not only affect private practice. In?house teams that run litigation must also ensure that an authorised person takes reserved steps. While many in?house lawyers hold practising certificates, large organisations often rely on non?lawyer staff to manage cases day to day. The same rules apply: supervision cannot convert unauthorised staff into authorised litigators, and titles must reflect actual status.
Unregulated providers and McKenzie Friends face separate limits. They cannot conduct litigation or exercise rights of audience unless the court grants permission in a specific case. The practice note’s emphasis on authorisation and formal steps serves as a reminder that only those with the proper status can take those steps. Parties who rely on non?authorised assistance for reserved acts risk delay, extra cost, and adverse orders.
What to watch in the months ahead
The publication of the practice note signals a period of adjustment. Firms will refine job descriptions, re?engineer workflows, and refresh supervision plans. Insurers will likely ask how firms control who signs and files. Courts may continue to test the boundaries case by case, and regulators may issue further reminders where they see risk. Many teams will also revisit their induction training to make sure junior staff understand when to escalate.
The Mazur decision has brought new focus to an old rule. The Law Society’s guidance gives solicitors a roadmap to navigate that rule in daily practice. It steers teams towards clear accountability and away from avoidable risk. In the months ahead, litigation leaders will look for steady implementation and fewer surprises on files as firms build these controls into standard practice. Clients should see the benefit in clearer communication, better supervision, and smoother progress through the courts.