Written by The Legal Services Act 2007 strictly limits the activities that non-regulated consultants can perform, reserving core functions—such as conduct of litigation and rights of audience—for authorised or exempt persons. Case law, including JK v MK [2020] EWFC 2, Baxter v Doble [2023] EWHC 486 (KB), and Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), confirms that while non-regulated consultants may give legal advice and draft documents, they must not issue proceedings, file with the court, or otherwise act in a way that constitutes the conduct of litigation as defined by the Act. On privilege, the Supreme Court in R (Prudential) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax [2013] UKSC 1 confirms legal advice privilege does not extend to non-lawyers; however, litigation privilege may still protect communications (see SFO v ENRC [2018] EWCA Civ 2006; WH Holding Ltd & West Ham United FC v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] EWCA Civ 2652). Therefore, threats of criminal proceedings under the Act are only coherent where a non-regulated consultant actually undertakes a reserved activity.
Another letter, another empty threat of “criminal proceedings” for daring to advise a litigant. Here’s the law—short, sharp, and without the theatre.
I am not a solicitor. I do not conduct litigation, exercise rights of audience, prepare reserved instruments, or undertake other reserved activities. I provide unreserved legal services: advice, drafting for client use, and case preparation. Where a formal step is required, the client or their instructed solicitor takes it. That is exactly what JK v MK [2020] EWFC 2 and the Legal Services Act 2007 permit.
1) What I Do (Lawful)
- Analyse facts and law for clients.
- Draft documents for clients to review, settle, and sign.
- Prepare chronologies, bundles, and case strategies.
- Write letters, clearly marked as not from a legal representative.
- Negotiate and support clients in unreserved matters.
- All formal steps (issuing, filing, serving, going on the record) are for the client or their solicitor.
2) What I Don’t Do (Reserved)
I do not: issue claims or commence proceedings; go on the court record or act as a party’s agent; file or serve documents as a representative; hold myself out as a legal representative; seek rights of audience; prepare reserved instruments, conduct probate, notarial activities, or administer oaths.
Reserved legal activities (Legal Services Act 2007, s.12 & Sch.2): rights of audience; conduct of litigation; reserved instrument activities; probate; notarial; administration of oaths. Breach by an unauthorised person is a criminal offence (s.14).
3) Why the Threats Fail (Law + Cases)
The law. Reserved activities are strictly for authorised or exempt persons. “Conduct of litigation” means issuing proceedings, prosecuting/defending them, and performing ancillary functions (e.g., filing, entering appearances, corresponding with the court as representative). Relabelling robust pre-action correspondence as “conduct of litigation” is legally wrong. See Legal Services Act 2007, Sch.2.
The cases.
- JK v MK [2020] EWFC 2: drafting for a LiP is permitted; filing or acting as agent is not.
- Baxter v Doble [2023] EWHC 486 (KB): unregulated providers who file/serve documents cross into conducting litigation.
- Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB): authorisation is personal; supervision within a firm does not entitle a non-authorised individual to conduct litigation. Supervision ≠ entitlement.
- Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M&E Services UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2865: an LSA breach by an agent did not void service; sanction hits the actor, not the client.
- R (Malik) v Governor of HMP Hindley (No.2) [2022] EWHC 2684 (Admin): ad hoc rights of audience exist but are rare and tightly controlled.
Privilege: The Real Position
I do not claim legal advice privilege over my communications—that belongs to qualified lawyers and their clients (R (Prudential) v SCIT [2013] UKSC 1). Where proceedings are in reasonable contemplation, communications made for the dominant purpose of that litigation can still attract litigation privilege, even if the adviser is not a lawyer (SFO v ENRC [2018] EWCA Civ 2006; WH Holding Ltd & West Ham United FC v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] EWCA Civ 2652). Plan your paper-trail accordingly.
Solicitor-Intimidation Challenge
If your position is that my correspondence amounts to a reserved legal activity, particularise: (i) the precise step you say I took; (ii) where that step sits in Schedule 2, Legal Services Act 2007 (issuing, filing, serving, or communicating with the court as representative); and (iii) the authority you rely on post- Baxter and Mazur. Absent particulars, drop the scare-letters and engage with the evidence.
Conclusion
I don’t impersonate a solicitor or trespass into reserved territory. I raise standards, sharpen arguments, and ensure LiPs aren’t steamrollered by process games. If your case is strong, you won’t need to hide behind misquoted sections of the Legal Services Act 2007. Stay in your lane; I’ll stay in mine. Let’s deal with the evidence, the chronology, and the law.
Quick Reference Authorities
- Legal Services Act 2007 (ss.12, 14, Sch.2)
- JK v MK [2020] EWFC 2
- Baxter v Doble [2023] EWHC 486 (KB)
- Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M&E Services UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2865
- Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)
- R (Prudential) v SCIT [2013] UKSC 1
- SFO v ENRC [2018] EWCA Civ 2006
- WH Holding Ltd & West Ham United FC v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] EWCA Civ 2652
- R (Malik) v Governor of HMP Hindley (No.2) [2022] EWHC 2684 (Admin)
Legal Disclaimer:This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information is based on the Legal Services Act 2007 and relevant case law, including JK v MK [2020] EWFC 2, Baxter v Doble [2023] EWHC 486 (KB), Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), R (Prudential) v SCIT [2013] UKSC 1, SFO v ENRC [2018] EWCA Civ 2006, and WH Holding Ltd & West Ham United FC v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] EWCA Civ 2652.
All legal authorities referenced should be checked for currency and applicability to your specific circumstances. For advice on your particular situation, consult a qualified legal professional.