Legal Services Board criticises differences in clarity of advice from regulators on conduct of litigation

The LSB launched a review in October 2025 following the High Court ruling in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys, in which Mr Justice Sheldon concluded that an employee of an authorised firm cannot conduct litigation simply by virtue of their employment, even if supervised by an authorised person.

The super-regulator noted: "While the judgment did not change the law, it raised questions about how the reserved legal activity of conducting litigation has been interpreted and applied in practice."

Publishing its interim findings today (29 January), the LSB said the material reviewed indicated that the availability of “clear and consistent” advice and guidance on how the profession should comply with the requirements of the Legal Services Act 2007 differed across parts of the regulated sector.

It said that, at times, the information provided by approved regulators and regulatory bodies in relation to the conduct of litigation "varied in clarity and level of detail".

The report said that regulators "adopted differing approaches, ranging from listing actions that could be considered to be conducting litigation or citing specific examples from case law, to referring to the Act for a definition of the conduct of litigation".

It also noted that some guidance on the supervision of colleagues undertaking reserved legal activities was not always articulated with "sufficient precision" in relation to the distinction between those reserved legal activities that can be conducted by unauthorised persons under the supervision of an authorised person and those that cannot, including the conduct of litigation.

The LSB also found that the material reviewed indicated that engagement on draft guidance between the approved regulators and regulatory bodies "varied", which "may have contributed to differences in how guidance was interpreted and applied".

In addition, it found that the regulatory bodies "held differing levels of information about the extent to which authorised and exempt persons within their regulated communities were in fact regularly engaged in the conduct of litigation".

Setting out its next steps, the LSB said it expects approved regulators and regulatory bodies to carefully consider the findings in the report, and called on regulators to ensure "there are no regulatory gaps".

"This is critical to ensuring the availability of clear advice and guidance to regulated professionals and to avoid inconsistency of approach across different parts of the sector," it said.

The LSB review took in material from the Bar Council, the Bar Standards Board, the Association of Costs Lawyers, the Costs Lawyer Standards Board, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, CILEx Regulation, the Intellectual Property Regulation Board, the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, the Law Society, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

The LSB emphasised that the interim report "does not make final findings of fact, determinations of compliance, or assessments of the legality of past or current regulatory approaches".

It said its full review will be informed by the outcome of the Court of Appeal proceedings in Mazur as well as further analysis of the material received.

Lawyers in Local Government (LLG) recently said it would seek legislative change on the use of legal executives and unqualified legal staff in the delivery of litigation services instead of intervening in the appeal of the High Court’s decision in Mazur.

It said it took this decision in part due to the “uncertainty” the ruling had caused, adding: "In these circumstances, LLG considers that the most effective and responsible course of action is to pursue legislative clarification and reform, rather than look to overturn the decision through litigation."

Adam Carey