Written by Legal Services Act 2007 · reserved activities · LiP support
The Legal Services Act 2007 strictly limits reserved legal activities. But it does not prohibit non-regulated consultants from giving unreserved legal advice, drafting documents for client use, or supporting case preparation where they do not conduct litigation or exercise rights of audience.
Publication snapshot
- Reserved legal activities include conduct of litigation and rights of audience.
- Non-regulated consultants may give legal advice and draft documents, but must not issue proceedings, file with the court, or act in a way that constitutes conduct of litigation.
- Threats of criminal proceedings under the Legal Services Act 2007 are coherent only where the non-regulated consultant actually undertakes a reserved activity.
- Legal advice privilege does not extend to non-lawyers, but litigation privilege may still apply where the legal test is met.
Overview
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 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.
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.
What I do: lawful unreserved work
I provide support that remains outside reserved legal activities.
Advice and analysis
- Analyse facts and law for clients.
- Identify issues, risks and evidential gaps.
- Prepare case strategies for client use.
Drafting and preparation
- Draft documents for clients to review, settle and sign.
- Prepare chronologies, bundles and case materials.
- Write letters clearly marked as not from a legal representative.
Client support
- Negotiate and support clients in unreserved matters.
- Help clients organise evidence and correspondence.
- Support decision-making without taking over the formal conduct of proceedings.
What I do not do: reserved activities
I do not issue claims or commence proceedings. I do not go on the court record or act as a party’s agent. I do not file or serve documents as a representative. I do not hold myself out as a legal representative. I do not seek rights of audience. I do not prepare reserved instruments, conduct probate, undertake notarial activities, or administer oaths.
Reserved legal activities under the Legal Services Act 2007 include rights of audience, conduct of litigation, reserved instrument activities, probate activities, notarial activities and administration of oaths. Breach by an unauthorised person is a criminal offence under section 14.
Reserved boundary
Conduct of litigation concerns formal litigation functions, including issuing, prosecuting or defending proceedings and ancillary functions within the statutory definition.
Unreserved boundary
Legal advice, client-side drafting, case preparation and support do not become reserved activities merely because the dispute is contentious.
Why the threats fail
Reserved activities are strictly for authorised or exempt persons. That is the law. But relabelling robust pre-action correspondence as “conduct of litigation” is legally wrong if the consultant has not issued proceedings, filed documents, served documents as a representative, entered an appearance, communicated with the court as representative, or otherwise taken a reserved step.
Threats of criminal proceedings under the Legal Services Act 2007 are only coherent where the alleged conduct is particularised by reference to a specific reserved activity.
The cases
Privilege: the real position
I do not claim legal advice privilege over my communications. Legal advice privilege belongs to qualified lawyers and their clients. The Supreme Court confirmed that in R (Prudential) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax [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. The key authorities include SFO v ENRC [2018] EWCA Civ 2006 and WH Holding Ltd & West Ham United FC v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] EWCA Civ 2652.
Solicitor-intimidation challenge
If your position is that my correspondence amounts to a reserved legal activity, particularise:
- the precise step you say I took;
- where that step sits in Schedule 2 to the Legal Services Act 2007;
- whether you allege issuing, filing, serving, communicating with the court as representative, exercising rights of audience, or another reserved activity;
- the authority you rely on after Baxter and Mazur.
Conclusion
I do not impersonate a solicitor or trespass into reserved territory. I provide advice, drafting and case preparation. I raise standards, sharpen arguments, and help ensure litigants in person are not steamrollered by process games.
If the opposing case is strong, it should be able to engage with the evidence, chronology and law without hiding behind misquoted sections of the Legal Services Act 2007.
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 Special Commissioner of Income Tax [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.
Another excellent article – and quite comical – you must have them worried if they are resorting to banal threats of no substance!! – a back-handed compliment one could say.
Your work continues to address and seeks to redress the abuse that seems embedded within the legal system by abuse of position and power of those in a position of influence – always to the retaliatory detriment of the Litigant-in-Person.
They won’t even learn from the Post Office scandal – vicious and unjust prosecutions, imprisonments and suicides – just for starters.
High quality and much-needed articulation and education for those fighting abusive employers, and their lawyers who gulp their shilling – and then complicit judges who wilfully obstruct, exclude and deny access to the courts – within such draining and ongoing circumstances.
A touch of hope on the horizon of the litigation journey, and a fillip for one’s confidence and perseverance – good stuff.