Decision
On 31 March 2026, the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal by the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX), finding that, under the Legal Services Act 2007, an unauthorised person can lawfully conduct litigation if they do so under the appropriate supervision of an authorised individual.
Background
The case originated from a fee recovery claim brought by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP against Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart. The claim was issued by Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors using Money Claims Online, with the Particulars of Claim signed by Peter Middleton, who did not hold a practising certificate, prompting a challenge that he was unlawfully conducting litigation.
The High Court judge had distinguished between (a) supporting or assisting an authorised solicitor in conducting litigation and (b) conducting litigation under the supervision of an authorised solicitor. The judge decided that an unauthorised person could do (a) but not (b). The court's interpretation of the 2007 Act challenged the conventional wisdom adopted by many lawyers in their decisions about how to resource and conduct cases.
CILEX, supported by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Law Centres Network, submitted that the judge was wrong to make the distinction and that both activities were lawful.
What were the issues on appeal?
The case concerned the proper meaning of the words "carry on the conduct of litigation" as used in the Legal Services Act 2007. The question was whether people working in a law firm or a law centre who are not themselves authorised individuals under the 2007 Act (ie unauthorised persons) are carrying on the conduct of litigation if they do so under the supervision of an authorised individual. If they are, those persons commit a criminal offence under section 14 of the 2007 Act, unless they establish a lack of knowledge defence under section 14(2). Section 14(4) provides that such a contravention also amounts to contempt of court.
The three issues before the court were as follows:
- The meaning of the words "carry on the conduct of litigation"
The court held that the ordinary meaning of the words "conduct of litigation" refers to the tasks to be undertaken, whilst the words "carry on" refer to the direction and control of, and the responsibility for, those tasks. An unauthorised person can lawfully perform any tasks within the scope of the conduct of litigation for and on behalf of an authorised individual, provided the authorised individual retains responsibility. The result means that the role of an unauthorised person in the context of the conduct of litigation is not limited merely to assisting or supporting an authorised individual. The delegation requires proper management, supervision and control, the details of which are a matter for the regulators. In all cases the authorised person retains the responsibility envisaged by the 2007 Act.
- Acts that actually constitute conducting litigation
The court did not consider that the arguments on appeal had equipped it to set out an exhaustive list of what did constitute conducting litigation, but it did identify seven categories (which it considered effectively to be common ground between the parties) of work unlikely to constitute the conduct of litigation, including pre-litigation work, giving legal advice, conducting correspondence, gathering evidence, instructing experts and counsel, and signing statements of truth.
- The law centre's model of work
Law centres operate a delegation model whereby solicitors supervise unauthorised staff (such as caseworkers and paralegals) who carry their own caseloads, with ratios of authorised to unauthorised staff reaching as high as one to five. The Court of Appeal held that this model was lawful as it was governed by the same principles as those set out in resolving the first issue.
What is the impact of the decision?
The decision reverses the High Court's finding. It confirms that unauthorised persons – including paralegals, trainee solicitors, clerks and law centre caseworkers – may lawfully perform tasks constituting the conduct of litigation under the supervision of an authorised individual, without committing a criminal offence, provided the authorised individual retains responsibility and puts in place appropriate supervisory arrangements.
This is a welcome decision. As the judgment references, lawyers have delegated casework to unqualified staff since Victorian times, so this decision essentially restores the long-standing position. The court recognised that there was potential for the first instance decision to have had wide-ranging ramifications for the profession and for that reason the appeal and decision had been expedited. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) will be updating its guidance in line with the decision, particularly on the importance of supervision by authorised persons.
