Let Down by a McKenzie Friend? What Mazur, Baxter and Wright v Troy Lucas Mean for Your Case

Law stated as at 4 August 2026 | England and Wales

If a McKenzie Friend has helped with your court case, you may have trusted them with some of the most important decisions of your life. Many McKenzie Friends stay within the proper boundaries of the role and provide valuable support. But what happens when an adviser takes over the case, files or serves documents without authority, misses a deadline, gives damaging advice or leaves the litigant with a procedural mess?

Four important cases—Mazur, Ndole Assets, Baxter v Doble and Wright v Troy Lucas—help explain where lawful assistance ends, when an unauthorised person may cross into the reserved conduct of litigation, and when negligent work may lead to a claim for compensation.

What is a McKenzie Friend?

A McKenzie Friend assists someone who is representing themselves. The litigant remains a litigant in person and remains responsible for their own case.

Under the judiciary’s Practice Guidance: McKenzie Friends (Civil and Family Courts), a McKenzie Friend may ordinarily:

• provide moral support;
• take notes;
• help with case papers; and
• quietly give advice about the conduct of the case.

Without specific permission or some other lawful entitlement, a McKenzie Friend may not:

• act as the litigant’s agent in the proceedings;
• manage the litigation outside court;
• sign court documents on the litigant’s behalf;
• address the court, make oral submissions or examine witnesses; or
• take over responsibility for formal steps that amount to conducting litigation.

The court can grant a lay person a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation in a particular case. Those permissions are exceptional, must be considered separately and should never be assumed.

Why the boundary matters

Under section 12 and Schedule 2 of the Legal Services Act 2007, the “conduct of litigation” is a reserved legal activity. Section 14 makes it an offence for a person to carry on a reserved legal activity unless that person is entitled to do so. A statutory defence may apply where the person did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that an offence was being committed.

Conducting litigation includes issuing proceedings, prosecuting or defending proceedings and performing certain formal ancillary functions. The difficult question is not simply whether an adviser touched a court document. The courts look at the substance of what happened: who directed and controlled the litigation, who assumed responsibility for formal steps, and whether the adviser was merely assisting or had effectively taken over the case.

1. Mazur: supervised paralegals are not independent McKenzie Friends

Mazur and another v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369, Court of Appeal, 31 March 2026. Read the official judgment.

What happened?

Julia Mazur and Jerome Stuart had instructed Charles Russell Speechlys LLP. A dispute later arose over fees exceeding £50,000. Charles Russell Speechlys instructed Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors to recover the alleged debt.

The claim was submitted through Money Claim Online and the Particulars of Claim were signed by Peter Middleton, described as Goldsmith Bowers’ “Head of Commercial Litigation”. He did not hold a current practising certificate, although the SRA had permitted the firm to employ him as a senior litigation executive subject to supervision.

Mr Middleton had undertaken a substantial amount of work. This included giving advice, taking instructions, drafting and submitting the claim form, serving statements of case and instructing counsel. Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart argued that he had unlawfully conducted litigation contrary to the Legal Services Act 2007.

The controversial 2025 decision

In Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB); [2026] 1 WLR 192, Sheldon J decided that an unauthorised employee could support an authorised solicitor but could not themselves conduct litigation merely because a solicitor supervised them.

That interpretation caused widespread concern. It appeared to threaten long-established working arrangements in solicitors’ firms, law centres and other regulated organisations where paralegals and litigation executives perform work under the control of authorised lawyers.

What the Court of Appeal decided

The Court of Appeal overturned that interpretation. It held that the words “conduct of litigation” describe the relevant tasks, while “carry on” refers to the direction and control of, and responsibility for, those tasks.

An unauthorised employee may therefore perform litigation tasks for an authorised solicitor or appropriately authorised CILEX practitioner where:

• the authorised practitioner properly delegates the work;
• appropriate arrangements exist for direction, management, supervision and control; and
• the authorised practitioner retains formal and professional responsibility.

In those circumstances, it is the authorised practitioner who is carrying on the conduct of litigation. The unauthorised employee is performing delegated work on that practitioner’s behalf.

Why Mazur does not give McKenzie Friends permission to run cases

Mazur does not create a general right for an independent adviser to conduct litigation. The Court of Appeal expressly distinguished cases in which an unauthorised person purported to act for a litigant in person.

An authorised solicitor has a regulated ability to delegate while retaining professional responsibility. A litigant in person’s exemption is personal. The litigant cannot ordinarily transfer that exemption to a McKenzie Friend. Saying that an adviser acted “under the client’s instructions” does not place the adviser in the same position as a supervised employee of a regulated firm.

2. Ndole Assets: a litigant’s right cannot simply be delegated

Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M&E Services UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2865; [2019] 1 WLR 1166. Read the Court of Appeal judgment.

Ndole Assets was acting as a litigant in person in a commercial claim. It used an unauthorised claims consultancy, CSD Legal Ltd, which purported to serve the claim form and supporting documents.

The Court of Appeal held that formal service of a claim form fell within the conduct of litigation. CSD had gone beyond acting as a courier or process server: it had assumed legal responsibility for service. It was not authorised or exempt and had therefore carried out the step unlawfully.

The Court distinguished between:

• a person performing a purely mechanical or administrative task, such as physically delivering an envelope; and
• a person assuming responsibility for effecting valid service in accordance with the rules.

Importantly, the unlawful conduct did not automatically make service a nullity. The court declined to invalidate service on the particular facts. That is an important warning against assuming that identifying unauthorised conduct will automatically erase everything that followed.

Relevance to McKenzie Friends: a McKenzie Friend may help a litigant understand what must be served and when. The danger arises if the adviser takes responsibility for effecting formal service, represents that they have done so validly, and effectively becomes the person conducting that part of the litigation.

3. Baxter v Doble: the court looks at the whole service

Baxter v Doble and another [2023] EWHC 486 (KB); [2023] 1 WLR 2948. Read the High Court judgment.

This case arose from possession proceedings. Sarah Doble was a CILEX member, then described as a graduate member, and operated through her company. Neither she nor the company was authorised to conduct litigation.

The work undertaken included drafting court documents, filing a claim form and Particulars of Claim, paying the court fee, signing a certificate of service, instructing an advocate, preparing witness statements and application documents, delivering a reply and defence to counterclaim, and preparing a case summary.

The High Court held, applying the criminal standard of proof required in the committal proceedings, that the respondents had conducted litigation. Their activities had to be examined together. Although some individual tasks might have been advisory or preparatory when considered alone, the complete service showed that they had assumed responsibility for prosecuting the proceedings.

The committal application was nevertheless dismissed because the statutory defence under section 14(2) applied: the respondents did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know at the relevant time, that the offence was being committed.

Relevance to McKenzie Friends: labels do not decide the issue. Describing a service as “support”, “consultancy” or “McKenzie Friend assistance” will not protect an adviser if the practical reality is that they are controlling and prosecuting the case. Courts can examine the entire package of work rather than viewing each email or document in isolation.

4. Wright v Troy Lucas: an unregulated adviser may owe compensation

Wright v Troy Lucas (a firm) & another [2019] EWHC 1098 (QB); [2019] 3 WLUK 375. See the case analysis and approved judgment.

Paul Wright had suffered life-changing injuries following negligent surgery. He instructed George Rusz and Troy Lucas to pursue his clinical-negligence claim. Mr Rusz was not a solicitor, but presented himself as an experienced legal professional and the service was promoted as being comparable to, or better than, that of solicitors and barristers.

The underlying claim settled for £20,000, but Mr Wright faced a substantial adverse costs liability. The High Court found numerous failings, including advancing a case without proper regard to the evidence, making inappropriate applications, failing to comply with orders, failing to respond properly to settlement offers and failing to obtain suitable expert input.

The defendants argued that there was no contract and no duty of care. The court rejected those arguments. Because they had held themselves out as experienced and competent legal advisers, they were judged against the standard they had assumed. Mr Wright was awarded £263,759 in damages, together with £73,200 in costs.

Although Mr Rusz is frequently discussed as a paid McKenzie Friend, his work went far beyond the traditional role of a friend sitting beside a litigant in court. That distinction matters.

Relevance to McKenzie Friends: being unregulated does not necessarily prevent civil liability. A paid adviser may owe contractual and tortious duties. The standard may be affected by what the adviser promised, how they described their expertise, what responsibility they assumed and what the client reasonably relied upon.

The four cases compared

Warning signs that a McKenzie Friend may have crossed the line

One mistake does not automatically prove negligence or unlawful conduct. However, the following should prompt a careful review:

• the adviser signed, issued, filed or formally served documents in their own name without clear authority;
• court staff, the other party or the judge treated the adviser as though they were running the litigation;
• the adviser communicated as the litigant’s representative rather than assisting the litigant to communicate;
• the adviser promised that they could act in the same way as a solicitor or barrister;
• important court orders or deadlines were ignored;
• applications or allegations were advanced without supporting evidence;
• the adviser discouraged the litigant from obtaining regulated advice where specialist advice was plainly needed;
• the litigant was asked to sign a document they did not understand or had not checked;
• fees and the limits of the service were not clearly explained;
• the adviser claimed rights of audience or spoke in court without the judge granting permission;
• the adviser retained the complete case file or refused to provide copies; or
• the litigant has been left unable to explain what has been filed, served or agreed in their name.

What should you do if your case has been left in a mess?

1. Obtain the complete file. Ask for every document, email, draft, invoice, attendance note and item sent to or received from the court or the other party.
2. Check the court record. Identify the current application, the latest sealed order, every live direction and the date of the next hearing.
3. Make a deadline list. Record what must be filed or served, by whom and on what date. Urgent deadlines take priority over investigating blame.
4. Preserve the evidence. Keep the adviser’s website claims, terms, advertisements, messages and payment records. Do not alter original documents.
5. Do not repeat a questionable step. If service, filing or representation may have been defective, obtain appropriate advice before trying to correct it informally.
6. Separate case repair from a complaint or compensation claim. The immediate court case may need stabilising before responsibility and financial loss can be assessed.
7. Seek regulated advice where required. An appeal, application to set aside, negligence claim, urgent injunction or limitation issue may require a solicitor or barrister.

Can you sue a McKenzie Friend?

Potentially, yes. The possible causes of action will depend on the facts and may include breach of contract, negligence, negligent misstatement or misrepresentation. A consumer-law issue may also arise.

A successful claim ordinarily requires more than showing that the advice was bad. The claimant may need to establish:

• the terms of the agreement;
• that the adviser owed a relevant duty;
• the standard the adviser undertook to provide;
• a breach of that duty;
• that the breach caused the alleged loss; and
• the amount of recoverable loss.

Recoverability is a separate practical question. Many McKenzie Friends are not required to carry professional indemnity insurance. Even a successful judgment may be difficult to enforce if the individual or business has no insurance or available assets.

Limitation periods may apply. Do not assume that an ongoing family or civil case stops time running for a potential claim against an adviser. A regulated solicitor should be consulted promptly where compensation is being considered.

Will the original court case automatically be reopened?

No. Ndole Assets shows that unlawfully performed work does not automatically make the relevant step a nullity. The court will consider the applicable procedural rules, the nature of the irregularity, prejudice, fairness, finality and the interests of justice.

In family proceedings, the welfare of a child and the need for finality may also be important. Evidence that an adviser acted outside their role may be relevant, but it does not by itself prove that an order should be set aside or appealed.

The correct remedy might instead be an application for relief, permission to correct or replace a document, an application to vary, an appeal, a complaint, a costs argument or a separate civil claim. Choosing the wrong route can create further delay and expense, which is why an early procedural review is valuable.

Frequently asked questions

Can a McKenzie Friend draft a statement?

A McKenzie Friend may help with case papers and may provide drafting assistance. However, the litigant must understand, approve and take responsibility for the document. The boundary becomes more concerning where an adviser assumes responsibility for the evidence, decides what the litigant will say, signs or files documents as representative, or provides a complete litigation-management service. Mazur also acknowledged that the authorities are not entirely settled on when preparing a witness statement forms part of the conduct of litigation.

Can a McKenzie Friend email the other party?

Correspondence and legal advice are unlikely, by themselves, to constitute the reserved conduct of litigation. But the judiciary’s McKenzie Friend guidance states that a McKenzie Friend may not act as the litigant’s agent or manage the case outside court. The safest model is generally for the litigant to remain the sender and decision-maker, with the McKenzie Friend assisting with clarity and structure.

Can a McKenzie Friend speak for me at a hearing?

Not automatically. The litigant must ask the judge to grant the McKenzie Friend a right of audience for that hearing. Permission is case-specific and should not be assumed merely because it was granted on a previous occasion.

Can I recover what I paid the McKenzie Friend?

Possibly, depending on the contract, the work actually performed, whether the fees were lawfully chargeable, the quality of the service and the loss suffered. Fees paid to a McKenzie Friend are generally not recoverable from the opposing party simply because the litigant wins.

Can I complain to the Legal Ombudsman?

Ordinarily, a wholly unregulated McKenzie Friend will not fall within the Legal Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The position may differ if the provider is an authorised or regulated person. Check the adviser’s actual regulatory status rather than relying on titles or logos.

Does identifying unauthorised conduct prove that I would have won?

No. Liability, causation and remedy are separate questions. You may need to show what should have happened, what difference competent assistance would have made and what loss was caused.

Final thoughts

McKenzie Friends can play an important role in access to justice. The problem is not assistance; it is confusion about responsibility, authority and accountability.

Mazur confirms that unauthorised employees can lawfully perform litigation tasks when a properly authorised practitioner remains in control and responsible. Ndole Assets and Baxter v Doble show why that principle cannot simply be transferred to an independent adviser acting for a litigant in person. Wright v Troy Lucas demonstrates that an unregulated adviser who assumes professional responsibility may face substantial civil liability when incompetent work causes loss.

If your case has gone off course, the immediate priority is not blame. It is establishing what the court has ordered, what remains live, what deadlines apply and what can realistically be corrected. Once the case is stable, responsibility and possible remedies can be considered properly.

Important: This article provides general information about the law of England and Wales as at 4 August 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Court procedure, limitation and the correct remedy depend on the facts of the individual case. JSH Law provides practical litigation support and McKenzie Friend services to litigants in person and does not act as a solicitor or conduct reserved legal activities.