Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) exposes the absurdities in the Legal Services Act 2007. An unqualified employee can negotiate a multimillion-pound settlement lawfully, yet risks criminal prosecution for issuing a small-claim writ. The case renews doubts about the Act’s fitness for purpose and whether statutory regulation should be dismantled altogether. Current compliance burdens stifle smaller firms, while regulation often fails to curb misconduct or protect clients. Sweeping reform might restore control to the professions and bar external ownership, but at a cost to transparency and innovation. Evidence, not ideology, should drive any future legal-services reform.
One of the more interesting aspects of the fallout of Mazur and another v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) is the question as to whether the Legal Services Act 2007 is fit for purpose. The “problem” of Mazur could be solved by extending the exemptions in schedule 3, to include the conduct of litigation.
But stepping back it seems simply absurd, that an unqualified member of staff can negotiate and settle an unissued £10 million claim without conflict with the regulatory constraints, yet if that same member of staff issues proceedings in a Small Claim, they do so at risk of criminal prosecution. The giving of legal advice itself, is not a reserved a legal activity. More fundamental change is needed.
More profoundly, why in fact have statutory regulation in the current form at all? Is it now time for a Big Beautiful Legal Reform Act to sweep away the current structure of regulation, and return regulation and the protection of the public to the professions, banning outside investment in law firms, and prohibiting their ownership by non lawyers?
Regulatory compliance costs, including anti-money laundering (AML) measures, client care documentation, and statutory compliance with damages-based and conditional fee agreements, place a real burden particularly on small law firms.
Moreover is regulation effective? There have been multiple law firm collapses in recent years, leaving the regulators struggling to keep up. Are “bad actors” simply able to circumvent regulation whether within the profession, or by providing legal services outside the regulators’ scope, rendering their oversight nugatory?
Although these are the disarmingly simple questions, the answers are less clear cut and require more than a moments thought. Law is complex and so is the system within which it is administered.
Dismantling the Legal Services Act 2007 could reduce compliance costs but risks reducing transparency, competition, and innovation in the sector. Prohibiting outside ownership might bolster professional integrity but could limit access to capital and expertise, possibly harming consumer choice and sector development.
I would suggest that before any policy is settled, let alone any reforms promulgated, the evidence and the data, should lead the debate, rather than being subsequently produced to justify a policy and program of (R)reform. This is a complex area, which requires analysis and consideration of many factors, not slogans.