Mazur ruling shakes up probate and litigation practice: Law Society issues urgent guidance

The recent Mazur judgment has sent ripples through the legal profession — from private client solicitors handling probate to criminal defence teams managing Crown Court cases.
 In response, the Law Society has issued a practice note clarifying how the ruling interacts with the Legal Services Act 2007, while professional bodies such as STEP (Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners) have warned that the decision exposes inconsistencies in existing probate rules.

The heart of the issue: conflicting legislation

At the centre of the controversy lies a tension between two key legal frameworks:

• the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA), which regulates who can conduct certain “reserved legal activities” such as litigation and probate, and
   
• the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 (NCPR), which govern the process of obtaining grants of representation.
   

Under the LSA, certain exempt individuals — such as paralegals or legal executives working under the supervision of an authorised person — may carry out some probate activities without being personally authorised.

However, the NCPR define a “probate practitioner” exclusively as an authorised person under the Act. This means that, under the current drafting, even a supervised but unqualified staff member technically cannot act in probate matters.

In its guidance note, STEP stated that this inconsistency has become untenable following Mazur, which clarified the limits of what unqualified or non-authorised staff can do under the LSA.

“This definition has the effect of excluding exempt individuals from carrying out activities under the NCPR, even where they would otherwise be permitted to do so under the LSA,” STEP explained.

“STEP intends to call on the government to amend the NCPR so that they align with the provisions of the LSA.”

Until that happens, the organisation’s advice is unambiguous: only authorised persons should carry out probate activities.

The Mazur case: why it matters

The Mazur ruling addressed whether legal work performed by individuals without the proper authorisation under the Legal Services Act could invalidate proceedings or constitute an offence.

While the case primarily involved civil litigation, its implications are far broader. The court held that although the unauthorised conduct of litigation is a statutory breach, it does not automatically nullify the underlying proceedings.

In other words, a claim isn’t necessarily struck out simply because someone without the proper authority drafted or filed a document.

The Law Society’s practice note emphasised that the courts have generally taken a pragmatic approach to such issues, favouring fairness over formality. It referenced the 2018 case of Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M&E Services UK Ltd, where the court declined to set aside proceedings simply because unauthorised individuals had conducted them, citing the good faith of those involved and the disproportionate consequences that would follow.

The same reasoning was applied in Mazur, where the judge refused to strike out the claim as an abuse of process, noting that any procedural defect had been “rectified” and that striking it out would cause “real prejudice to the respondent.”

STEP’s warning: possible disciplinary action

STEP’s guidance was notably firm about compliance.
 The organisation warned that members who knowingly ignore the restrictions of the Legal Services Act and engage in reserved legal activities without authorisation could face disciplinary action — and, in some cases, may even be committing a criminal offence.

“Where a member has wilfully ignored the restrictions of the Act and undertaken reserved legal activities without authorisation, this may constitute illegal practice and [STEP] would consider disciplinary action in liaison with the relevant regulator.”

That said, STEP took a measured stance on cases of genuine misunderstanding:

“Where a member has acted in good faith, relying on regulatory advice that was subsequently found to be incorrect or misleading, or where a regulated member has supervised unregulated colleagues under that advice, STEP will generally not commence disciplinary action.”

The message is clear: firms must ensure they are acting within the letter of the law, and not simply following “industry custom” that may now fall foul of the updated interpretation.

The Law Society’s response: clarity, but not certainty

In its practice note, the Law Society acknowledged that Mazur had created “significant uncertainty” across multiple areas of legal practice — not only probate, but also civil, family, and criminal litigation.

Law Society president Mark Evans said the judgment had sparked confusion about what non-authorised staff can and cannot do. While the ruling doesn’t change the underlying law, it highlights the grey areas between assistance and actual conduct of litigation.

“While the judgment does not change the statutory requirements relating to authorisation to conduct litigation as a reserved legal activity, we hope this practice note will provide greater clarity to our members,” Evans said.

“However, there remain grey areas where further guidance from regulators and others is required.”

What non-authorised staff can still do

The Law Society has clarified that non-authorised personnel — such as paralegals, trainee solicitors, or legal executives — may still carry out certain preparatory or supporting tasks, as long as an authorised person takes ultimate responsibility.

These permissible activities include:

• Pre-litigation work: tasks carried out before proceedings are formally issued.
   
• Drafting assistance: helping prepare pleadings, statements of case, applications, correspondence, or witness statements.
   
• Document handling: signing statements of truth or uploading materials to the court portal, if done under supervision.
   
• Client support: communicating updates, taking instructions, and managing evidence.
   

However, the “key formal trigger points” — such as issuing proceedings, signing off claims, or making binding decisions — must always remain the responsibility of the authorised litigator.

Evans stressed that firms should ensure these responsibilities are clearly documented:

“Tasks can be delegated so long as there is an authorised person responsible for each matter, the work is actively supervised, and key decisions are escalated to the authorised person, who exercises their professional judgment in relation to them.”

Impact on criminal defence firms

Perhaps surprisingly, the Mazur ruling has also rattled the criminal defence community.

Writing on LinkedIn, Andrew Bishop, a well-known criminal defence solicitor, pointed out that many Crown Court cases are managed day to day by non-authorised staff, such as legal executives or paralegals, under the distant supervision of a solicitor.

“This is always under the supervision of a solicitor but the legal executive/paralegal would do most of the work,” Bishop wrote.

“There are variations on this way of working and it is not universal, but it has been a common and cost-effective model in many firms for many years.”

Following Mazur, that model may no longer be sustainable.
 If every substantive step in a case must now be approved by an authorised litigator, firms could face severe operational and financial strain.

Bishop warned that time-sensitive actions — such as filing defence statements, responding to witness disclosures, or amending pleas — may be delayed while solicitors are located for sign-off, particularly in smaller firms juggling multiple court appearances.

“For private client work, firms will inevitably increase fees to absorb these additional burdens. For legal aid work, there must likewise be an urgent increase in fees.”

He noted that Crown Court graduated fees, which have remained largely unchanged since 2008, were designed for a system in which much of the workload was delegated to non-authorised personnel. “That can no longer be the case,” he said, “and so fees must reflect this if firms are to survive.”

Compliance checklist for law firms

The Law Society has urged firms to review their internal systems to ensure compliance.
 Every firm conducting litigation should now:

1. Map the litigation workflow, identifying each formal trigger point.
    
2. Assign clear responsibility to an authorised person for every step that constitutes the conduct of litigation.
    
3. Verify practising rights, ensuring authorised individuals actually hold the right to conduct litigation under their practising certificates.
    
4. Document supervision processes, showing how unqualified staff are overseen.
    
5. Record decision-making, particularly when delegating or escalating key actions.
    

This documentation is not just best practice — it could be crucial evidence in the event of a regulatory review or client complaint.

The broader implications: cost, access, and compliance

The Mazur judgment reinforces a core principle: reserved legal activities must be performed or supervised by authorised professionals.

But while this strengthens consumer protection and professional accountability, it also risks raising costs and reducing access to justice — especially in areas like criminal defence and probate, where margins are already tight.

For small and medium-sized firms, the administrative and compliance burden could be significant. Many will need to restructure teams, update supervision models, or even rethink how paralegals are used.

At the same time, the case has reignited debate about whether the Legal Services Act 2007 is fit for purpose, nearly two decades after its introduction. With legal practice evolving rapidly — and unregulated providers becoming more common — the line between legal “support” and legal “conduct” may need clearer statutory guidance.

What happens next?

STEP’s planned lobbying to amend the Non-Contentious Probate Rules is expected to be the first of several efforts to modernise the law in this area.
 If successful, the amendments could formally recognise the supervised involvement of non-authorised staff in probate matters, bringing the rules into line with the Legal Services Act.

In the meantime, firms should proceed cautiously.
 The message from regulators is clear: if in doubt, get sign-off from an authorised person — and keep records to prove it.

Final thoughts

The Mazur judgment may not have rewritten the Legal Services Act, but it has forced the profession to confront long-standing inconsistencies in how the law is applied.

For private client lawyers, it exposes flaws in the probate rules that urgently need reform. For criminal defence firms, it raises existential questions about viability under current fee regimes.

The common thread is accountability — ensuring that every step in a legal process is backed by authorised expertise.
 Whether this strengthens the justice system or drives up costs remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the age of informal delegation is over.

Contact Us Now

Related Reading:

2025 Standard Crime Contract: Welcome Packs, Key Changes, and Resources for Providers

Civil News: Legal Aid Opportunities in Housing and Debt

Best Small Business and Start-Up Grants and Loans in the UK