High Court Ruling Redefines Who Can Conduct Litigation

The recent High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (2025) has sent shock waves through the debt recovery sector. The ruling clarified that the reserved legal  activity of “conducting litigation” can only be undertaken by a qualified person  authorised by a legal regulator like the SRA.~”Conduct of litigation” is defined as certain steps taken in proceedings before the Courts, so in practical terms,  , everything prior to a claim being issued ‘pre-legal’ can continue to be   handled by any member of staff. Crucially, however, the Judgment confirmed that non-qualified staff—even when supervised—are no longer permitted to have conduct of files once the matter goes before the Court, although they can continue to assist. Key Implications of the Mazur Decision: 

• Restrictions on Legal Executives & litigation assistants: For years, Legal Executives and paralegals formed the backbone of debt recovery & litigation departments. They managed much of the day-to-day work under supervision. The Mazur ruling has effectively stripped them of this,  reshaping how firms must staff and structure their litigation teams. The non-authorised person will still manage the relationship and assist the authorised person. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the governing body for Legal Executives, CILEX, is currently seeking to appeal the Decision. 

• Increased costs for clients: With only solicitors or other regulated professionals able to conduct litigation, the cost of debt recovery is expected to rise. 

• Operational disruption for firms: Debt recovery departments will need to reorganise workflows, and potentially recruit more qualified solicitors to handle tasks previously delegated to non-qualified personnel. 

The Cost Question

One of the most pressing concerns is whether courts will take these increased costs into account when making costs orders. If litigation has become more expensive purely because of regulatory restrictions, should clients be penalised by recovering less of their expenditure? The Mazur ruling leaves this question open, and practitioners will be watching closely to see how judges approach costs assessments in the months ahead. 

Why This Matters 

The decision is more than a technical clarification—it represents a fundamental shift in debt recovery litigation. By narrowing who can conduct litigation post issue, the courts have prioritised professional accountability and regulatory compliance, but at the expense of efficiency and affordability. For businesses reliant on debt recovery, this ruling could reshape strategies, budgets, and even the viability of pursuing certain claims through the Courts.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this article then please contact me .