The Legal Services Board has published interim findings from its review of how frontline regulators provide guidance on the scope of litigation activities, following the High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys. The Mazur judgment highlighted uncertainty around what constitutes the “conduct of litigation” under the Legal Services Act framework, particularly in relation to new legal service models where non-authorised individuals or entities may be involved in preparatory or supportive litigation work (ALSPs, Non-Authorised Staff such as Paralegals, etc)
In Mazur, the court examined whether certain litigation-related activities carried out by individuals who were not authorised persons fell within the reserved legal activity of conducting litigation. The case exposed flaws in how the boundary between “assisting” with litigation and formally “conducting” litigation is understood and applied in practice, raising concerns about regulatory clarity, enforcement consistency, and consumer protection in an evolving legal services market.
LSB’s interim review identifies variation in the clarity and consistency of guidance issued by different frontline regulators, as well the different approaches taken by regulators to coordinate and develop guidance on the conduct of litigation. .
The interim report calls for greater collaboration between regulators, improved data collection on litigation activity in the market, and clear, transparent regulations for practitioners and firms operating near the boundary of reserved legal activities. The LSB has indicated that further conclusions will follow once the Court of Appeal have provided additional clarity on the scope of the “conduct of litigation”.