Jessica Jarvis

When I first wrote about Mazur, the High Court’s decision had sent a shock through ordinary legal practice.

What had begun as a costs appeal quickly turned into something much wider: a challenge to the way legal work is actually done in firms, advice organisations and specialist teams. It raised an uncomfortable question. If an unauthorised fee earner drafted documents, filed paperwork, dealt with procedural steps or progressed an application under supervision, had they crossed the line into the reserved legal activity of conducting litigation?

The Court of Appeal has now answered that question. It has corrected the first instance decision in a significant way. But the real lesson of the appeal is not that firms can breathe out and carry on as before without thinking. It is that delegation only works if supervision is real.

---

The most useful part of the appeal, in my view, is the way it separates what the task is from who is legally carrying it on.

“Conduct of litigation” refers to the litigation tasks themselves. “Carry on” refers to who has the direction, control and responsibility for those tasks.

That distinction is key. It means that the fact an unauthorised person performs a litigation task does not automatically mean they are the person legally carrying on the conduct of the litigation.

The Court of Appeal rejected the idea that there is a rigid line between merely “assisting” an authorised lawyer, which is lawful, and “conducting litigation under supervision”, which is not. Instead, it held that an unauthorised person may lawfully carry out even tasks that fall within the conduct of litigation, provided they do so for and on behalf of an authorised individual who retains responsibility, direction and proper supervision.

That is the core of the appeal.

The emphasis is not simply on whether the task itself forms part of litigation. The emphasis is on who, in substance, is controlling the matter and bearing responsibility for it.

The practical reality

A junior drafts the application. A paralegal prepares the bundle. A trainee files approved papers. Someone chases the court for an order. Someone else deals with standard procedural steps.

That is ordinary legal practice. It has been for years.

The appeal recognises that reality. It accepts that legal work is often carried out within teams and through delegation. What matters is whether those tasks are being done on behalf of an authorised solicitor or authorised CILEX litigator who remains in charge, or whether the junior fee earner is, in truth, being left to run the case themselves.

That is where the line really sits.

If a paralegal drafts, files or serves documents on my instructions, within proper systems, and I remain the person deciding the course of the matter and taking responsibility for it, then I am still carrying on the conduct of the litigation.

If, however, the unauthorised person is effectively left to make the decisions, shape the court-facing work and assume responsibility without meaningful supervision, the problem has not disappeared. It has simply been exposed for what it always was.

The appeal is not a licence for lazy supervision

This is the point that, for me, matters most.

The Court of Appeal’s decision should not be read as a green light for the kind of casual delegation that already existed in some places. Not the model where the senior solicitor’s name sits on the file, the junior does the real work, and the authorised lawyer gives the papers a quick glance before signing and calling that supervision.

That is not good enough.

If anything, the appeal makes it even clearer that supervision has to be genuine. The authorised lawyer must actually know what is being done, why it is being done, what stage the matter is at, what risks arise, and what decisions have been taken. Delegation must be clear. Escalation points must be clear. Responsibility must be evidenced, not assumed.

The issue is not whether the senior lawyer is nominally attached to the case. The issue is whether they are truly directing it.

That means being present. Being informed. Giving proper instructions. Reviewing work properly. Teaching juniors properly. Intervening where required. Taking ownership of strategy and of significant procedural or substantive steps.

That is how it should always have been.

A word on CILEX practitioners

The CILEX angle matters, but it also needs care.

The appeal does not mean that simply being CILEX now automatically gives a person conduct of litigation rights. If a CILEX lawyer wants to be the person actually holding conduct of the matter in their own right, they still need the relevant litigation authorisation.

I think one of the frustrations for many CILEX practitioners is that, before all this, some had understood the old section 21(3) position to mean that working within an authorised firm was enough, so that they did not need separate litigation authorisation to carry out this sort of work. The appeal does not confirm that analysis.

What it says instead is more precise. A CILEX practitioner without litigation authorisation may still carry out litigation tasks, but only as a delegate of an authorised individual who retains direction, control and responsibility for the matter. So the route is not reliance on the general umbrella of the firm. The route is delegated and supervised work on behalf of an authorised solicitor or authorised CILEX litigator.

What this means for Court of Protection work

For Court of Protection teams, the appeal is reassuring, but it should also act as a reminder.

A great deal of CoP work is not contentious litigation at all. It is deputyship administration, financial decision-making, best interests implementation, liaison with institutions, reporting, property management, tax and benefits work, safeguarding issues, care arrangements and all the rest of the practical work that follows from an appointment.

Where the judgment matters most is in court-facing work: applications, evidence, notifications, service, filing, procedural compliance, responses, objections and the steps taken once proceedings are live.

In that context, the appeal reflects the reality of specialist teams. A paralegal may draft an application. A trainee may prepare the exhibits. A caseworker may file approved forms, notify respondents, collate evidence and keep the matter moving. That can all still be lawful.

But the supervising solicitor or authorised CILEX litigator must remain the person who actually knows what is happening, decides the course of the matter, approves the important steps and takes responsibility for the case.

That is the critical point.

Not who uploaded the PDF. Not who sent the chaser email. Not who assembled the bundle at the end of the day. Who, in substance, was conducting the matter.

The warning for senior lawyers

There is an uncomfortable truth here for senior solicitors and authorised CILEX practitioners.

Many work with very capable paralegals and trainees. Some of those juniors are excellent. Some know the routine steps inside out. Some have seen the same sort of case many times before. That competence can breed a dangerous comfort. People start assuming the junior “will just deal with it”. Court-facing work becomes habit. The senior lawyer signs off at the end and tells themselves they are supervising.

That is precisely where things go wrong.

Competent juniors do not reduce the need for supervision. In some ways, they increase the temptation to neglect it.

The appeal should be read as a warning against that complacency. If you are the authorised lawyer with conduct, then you must actually conduct the matter. You must not merely lend your name to it.

The warning for juniors too

There is a message here for paralegals, trainees and junior fee earners as well.

If your senior is not properly supervising you, that does not make the arrangement correct. It does not make it safe simply because “this is how we have always done it” or because the team is busy or because you are capable.

You need to protect yourself too.

Know what you are authorised to do and what you are not. Know when a matter needs to be escalated. Know when a decision is above your level. Know when you need proper sign-off. If you are effectively being left to run litigation or court-facing work without real supervision, that is not something to wear as a badge of honour. It is a risk.

Competence is not the same as authority.

Where the appeal really leaves us

The Court of Appeal has restored a dose of realism to this area. It has recognised that modern legal practice works through teams, delegation and layered supervision. That matters, and it is welcome.

But the real message of Mazur after the appeal is not “relax”. It is “supervise properly”.

Delegation is lawful. Abdication is not.

The line between the two is not drawn by job titles, or by whose name appears on the case management system, or by who signs the final page after a hurried skim. It is drawn by substance: who gave the instructions, who understood the matter, who controlled the case, who taught and supervised the junior, and who stood behind the work as their own.

That is what the appeal preserves.

And, frankly, that is what good legal practice should have required all along.

---

Practical takeaway

A helpful way to test the distinction is this.

A junior may be doing litigation tasks if they are:

– Drafting an application or witness statement on instruction

– Preparing exhibits and bundles filing approved documents with the court

– Serving or notifying papers as directed

– Chasing the court or other parties for updates

– Dealing with routine procedural steps within clear instructions

– Collating evidence and information for the supervising lawyer’s review

That can all still be lawful, even where the task itself forms part of the conduct of litigation.

The authorised lawyer is carrying on the litigation if they are:

– Deciding whether proceedings should be issued

– Deciding the strategy and direction of the case

– Determining what evidence is needed and how it should be used

– Approving the content of court-facing documents before they are filed

– Deciding how to respond to objections, applications or risks that arise

– Supervising the junior’s work properly and being able to explain what has been done and why

– Retaining real responsibility for the progress and conduct of the matter

In short, a junior may do the work, but the authorised lawyer must still own it.

If the junior is merely carrying out delegated tasks within proper supervision, the authorised lawyer remains the person carrying on the litigation. If the junior is, in truth, left to run the case, make the decisions and assume responsibility without meaningful oversight, that is where the problem lies.