The High Court Sends A Very Clear Message: Stop Letting Unqualified Staff Run Cases
Every now and then a High Court judgment lands that looks, at first glance, a bit dry and technical. But read between the lines and you realise it’s basically a grenade rolled under the table. That’s exactly what happened in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP.
The key takeaway- If you’re not a qualified solicitor, you cannot run litigation. Not “you shouldn’t,” not “you’d better be careful,” but flat-out prohibited. And if you do, it’s not just risky, it’s an actual criminal offence. Even if you’re working in a regulated firm. Even if you’ve got a solicitor “supervising” you. What you can do, if you’re unqualified, is support a solicitor. The line between “supporting” and “conducting” is hazy at best, but the court spelt out some guideposts: who’s drafting or approving important documents, who’s making the strategic calls, who’s responsible for the formal steps - if the answer is, the unqualified lawyer, you’ve crossed the line.
This matters because, let’s be honest, lots of firms have been leaning hard on unqualified staff to make the numbers work. Fixed costs have squeezed margins so tightly that employing cheaper paralegals to run cases under “supervision” has become the only way some practices keep the lights on. The judge backed the SRA’s argument that it’s in the public interest for litigation to be conducted by people who are properly trained, regulated and insured – but that comes at a cost.
This judgment is a big wake-up call, but it’s also an opportunity. Here at FinLegal we can help firms keep costs down without crossing the line into unqualified people “conducting” litigation. The use smart use of agentic AI is part of the answer but only where humans remain firmly in charge.
Here’s exactly what we can do for law firms and for clients: Use of Agentic AI: automation that assists, not replaces
Agentic AI is great at repetitive, structured tasks. We build systems that do the work but stop and flag at the moments a solicitor must decide or sign:
· Draft-first workflows: AI drafts pleadings, letters, and standard court forms. A named solicitor reviews and approves before anything is filed.
· Evidence triage & summarisation: AI groups documents, extracts key facts, and produces a concise brief to the solicitor which saves hours of manual sorting.
· Deadline & compliance automation: Automated checklists, auto-populated court forms and calendar alerts, with human sign-off for formal steps.
· Client Q&A bots: Answer routine client queries (status, documents required) while escalation rules push legal questions to a qualified solicitor.
All with strict “human-in-the-loop” gates so that the solicitor remains the person who conducts litigation.
Author: Sare Brownhill
Sare has worked in civil litigation for 25 years, in her career she has been both a litigator and latterly Head of Litigation. She is a qualified Legal Executive. She now dedicates her time to helping firms thrive within the constraints of CFAs, DBAs and fixed fees by using best in class automation to maximise claimant engagement and automate repetitive, costly work.
