The High Court’s recent decision in Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP ([2025] EWHC 2341(KB)) has sent a clear and consequential message to the legal profession: reserved legal activities under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA) must only be conducted by authorised individuals.
The ruling resolved a dispute over unpaid legal fees but also clarified the boundaries of lawful conduct in litigation, particularly where non-qualified staff are involved. This has implications for solicitors, and law firms who delegate probate activities to unqualified staff.
Case Summary: Mazur & Ors v CRS LLP
This was a case in the High Court before Mr Justice Sheldon. Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (CRS) sought to recover unpaid legal fees via Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (GBS). The appellants, Julia Mazur & Jerome Stuart, challenged the legitimacy of the proceedings, citing that Peter Middleton, a GBS employee without a practising certificate, had conducted reserved legal activities, namely litigation. The High Court ruled that Middleton was not authorised to conduct litigation, even under supervision, and quashed the costs order.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and The Law Society intervened in the case, stressing the importance of ensuring that litigation is conducted by fit and proper persons. The court clarified that only authorised persons (such as solicitors or those with specific legal rights) can conduct litigation. Activities such as issuing proceedings, signing statements of truth, and corresponding with the court or other parties on behalf of a litigant may amount to conducting litigation. The court found that Middleton had crossed the line into conducting litigation without authorisation. The judgment reinforces the need for public confidence in the legal system and the protection of consumers.
Legal Framework: Reserved Legal Activities under the LSA
Schedule 2 of the LSA defines six categories of reserved legal activities, which may only be carried out by authorised persons. These are:
1. Conduct of Litigation
2. Rights of Audience
3. Reserved Instrument Activities
4. Probate Activities
5. Notarial Activities
6. Administration of Oaths
These activities are regulated to protect the public and ensure the integrity of the legal system. Conducting a reserved legal activity without authorisation is a criminal offence under Section 14. Both the individual and the employer may be liable, even if the employer is a regulated firm.
Implications for Probate Practice
Under Schedule 2, Paragraph 6 of the LSA, probate activities means:
“Preparing any probate papers for the purposes of the law of England and Wales or in relation to any proceedings in England and Wales.”
It explains that:
“probate papers’ means papers on which to found or oppose (a) a grant of probate, or (b) a grant of letters of administration.”
This has implications for non-contentious probate practitioners who are making applications to issue grants of representation through either the MyHMCTS portal or via the paper application route. This also impacts contentious probate practitioners who are placing caveats at HMCTS and conducting probate litigation.
The Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987
The Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 defines a ‘probate practitioner’ as:
“a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes a probate activity (within the meaning of that Act)”.
Reserved Activity can only be carried out by an authorised person (s13 and s18 LSA 2007). Carrying out a Reserved Legal Activity without proper authorisation is a criminal offence. See offences in ss 14 – 17 of the Act. Authorised persons are qualified solicitors, barristers, accountants with probate licence, notary public and licensed conveyancers who can all conduct probate activities as regulated individuals within their profession. CILEX are only authorised to exercise a right of audience or administer oaths, NOT probate activities. Trainee and apprentice solicitors, pupil barristers, accountants without the probate licence and, the ubiquitous ‘paralegal’, are not authorised persons.
Who is a ‘person’
Further, the concept of a ‘person’ includes both natural persons (human beings) and legal persons (entities recognised by law as having rights and duties), under the Companies Act 2006, a company is treated as a legal person. A company, being a legal person, cannot act physically. It must operate through human agents, those are it’s ‘officers’. These are defined in Section 1121 as directors and duly authorised managers, appointed by resolution.
Traditional partnerships under the Partnership Act 1890, that is most traditional law firms, are not a legal entity, but rather a relationship between individuals. The partnership is not a ‘person’. Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) under the LLP Act 2000, despite the name, is not a partnership in the traditional sense, it is a hybrid that has separate legal personality. LLPs act through its profit sharing members.
For probate activities, these structures are regulated by one of the SRA, CILEx Regulation, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC), The ICAEW / ACCA. Each regulatory body produces guidance for its members to identify those individuals who are ‘authorised persons’ and therefore can be defined as a ‘probate practitioners’ and, (as either members of the LLP or officers of the company) can conduct probate activities on behalf of that entity.
This article focuses on SRA regulated firms and the solicitors and other individuals working within them.
Non-contentious Probate Practitioners
If the Mazur case is applied across all reserved activities, it will mean that only authorised individuals (e.g., solicitors, barristers, licensed conveyancers, notaries, or chartered accountants approved for probate) may prepare applications for the issue of a grant of representation. Support staff may assist but must not assume responsibility or exercise professional judgement.
This means that law firms should not be allowing anyone but regulated individuals to sign the Legal Statements produced by the MyHMCTS portal, nor the paper application forms (PA1A and PA1P), on behalf of clients. They should also not permit anyone but regulated individuals to submit applications to the Probate Registry via the MyHMCTS portal. Only regulated individuals should communicate in correspondence on substantive matters with the Probate Registry.
If the firm is a company then it can allow its duly appointed officers, who are not authorised individually, to conduct probate activities, under supervision. This is the same for members of the LLP. It should be noted that it is unlikely that paralegals, trainee solicitors or solicitor apprentices are officers of the company or members of the LLP. Therefore they cannot undertake probate activities even under the supervision of a regulated individual as supervision does not confer authorisation under the LSA.
No unauthorised person working in a traditional partnership can conduct probate activities, even under the supervision of an authorised individual.
To be clear support staff, paralegals, trainee solicitors and apprentices may carry out non-reserved activities such as: collecting client information; drafting non-substantive correspondence, preparing internal checklists or summaries, and assisting with document collation (e.g., wills, death certificates, etc.). They must not: sign or submit probate applications; advise clients on legal strategy, or correspond with the Probate Registry on substantive matters.
Contentious Probate Practitioners
The placing a caveat is the primary legal step used by contentious probate practitioners to oppose the issuing of a grant of representation, but there are several other tools and strategies available depending on the nature of the dispute. These will include the placing of a standing search, citation proceedings, issuing probate claims under Part 57 Civil Procedure Rules, the substitution or removal of personal representations, and, the revocation of existing grants.
As in the Mazur case, these activities may have an element of administration that can be completed by non-qualified staff, who assist with contentious matters under supervision, but only in ways that do not cross into reserved legal activities. The final decision making and submission are to be carried out by an authorised person only.
Actions
The Mazur case could be subject to an appeal although the Law Society think this unlikely. Solicitors, law firms and the whole legal profession require clearer guidance on what activities can and cannot be undertaken by different individuals within law firms. Until the appeal is concluded and / or guidance is issued we are left in legal limbo.
A sensible course of action for all SRA regulated firms is to conduct a compliance audit to check the firm’s records of who in their firm prepared, and submitted each probate document and application to HMCTS (for both contentious and non-contentious matters) and flag any activity by unauthorised staff that may cross into reserved territory. They then report potential breaches to the firm’s Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (COLP). Any suspected breach must be reported to the SRA.
Firms will want to clearly document who is doing what reserved legal activities and why it is lawful for them to do so. This includes maintaining a record of compliance to show only authorised individuals are conducting reserved legal activities. Firms will review internal practices and, as a precaution, may remove the access logins to MyHMCTS from unqualified staff to avoid potential problems arising.
Conclusion
The Legal Services Board (LSB), established by the LSA, is the oversight regulator for legal services in England & Wales. The LSB overseas the approved regulators who authorise firms and individuals to provide reserved legal services to the public. Perhaps it is time for the LSB to step in and ensure that all regulatory bodies set clear standards and requirements for authorisation.
Until we have clarity, the Mazur v CRS LLP ruling is a pivotal reminder that reserved legal activities are not administrative tasks, they are regulated legal functions. Firms must ensure that only authorised individuals carry out such work, particularly in sensitive areas like probate. Supervision is not a substitute for authorisation, and failure to comply risks not only regulatory sanction but also reputational damage and invalid legal proceedings.
Ian Bond is Head of Legal at Dignity Legal Services and Stephen Lawson is a Partner at IDR Law and Chair of the Law Society’s wills and equity committee
2 responses
I don’t think it is quite as dire as this – unlike with litigation, there is an exemption for carrying on probate activities under supervision (see schedule 3, para 4 LSA).
Do Cilex Probate Practitioners, who have been issued practising rights, also fall within the definition of ‘authorised persons’? I note they are not included in the list in the article “… only authorised individuals (e.g., solicitors, barristers, licensed conveyancers, notaries, or chartered accountants approved for probate) may prepare applications for the issue of a grant of representation.” Cilex Regulation website states CILEX Practitioners are authorised persons, and in respect of probate activities are authorised to carry out probate activities as defined at paragraph 6 schedule 2 Legal Services Act 2007.