Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 12 NOVEMBER 2025

Ensuring Compliance After Mazur: A Practical Guide For Law Firms

Browne Jacobson LLP
Browne Jacobson LLP
Contributor
Browne Jacobson LLP

Browne Jacobson LLP

We’re Browne Jacobson. The law firm for positive impact across business and society. Social and...

View firm profile
Explore more from Browne Jacobson LLP

The recent decision in Mazur & another v Charles Russell Speechlys has raised important questions about how law firms must approach litigation work.

United KingdomLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The recent decision in Mazur & another v Charles Russell Speechlys has raised important questions about how law firms must approach litigation work. In this article, we consider the impact and outline how firms can ensure they remain compliant.

Background

As is likely well-known, the underlying case arose from a debt recovery action by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (CRS) against their former client, Mrs Mazur, for non-payment of their legal fees totalling approximately £55,000. CRS instructed Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (GBS) to conduct the recovery action. Mr Middleton, a non-qualified fee earner at GBS, handled the debt matter, carrying out the majority of steps in the claim. It was Mr Middleton's involvement that Mrs Mazur subsequently challenged, and which has given rise to the ensuing debate.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from