Mazur has confirmed what we all knew, says John Gould: some legal services can only be provided by those who are authorised to do so
- The judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys confirms the law as set out in the Legal Services Act 2007.
- The key question is how to distinguish between those who are ‘conducting’ a case and those who are only working on it. The person responsible for a particular matter must be an authorised person.
- Mazur should prompt non-compliant firms to make corrections before they are prosecuted or suffer disciplinary consequences.
From the moment judgment was handed down in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), expressions of alarm have been sounding like klaxons. This is surprising because, as those familiar with the relevant law know, the decision very properly restates the law as it has existed for many years.
The Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007) set out the framework for the regulation of persons who carry out certain legal
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b21f1aaf_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=754d0e82_1)
