The question of what counts as 'conducting litigation' has often been a grey area. Supervision had, in some firms, been taken as a sufficient safeguard to allow non-qualified employees to take on a wider role. Mr Justice Sheldon’s ruling tries to draw a clear line stating litigation must be carried out by those with a practising certificate, not by those still learning or progressing within a firm. It’s still not clear if there will be any follow up arguments about what ‘conducting litigation’ means.

So far, it’s been argued that this decision keeps standards high by making sure only fully qualified practitioners handle the tasks that carry the greatest weight and risk. This in turn helps to protect clients, who can expect their cases to be handled by those professionals who have demonstrated the knowledge, skill and integrity required by regulators, the Law Society and Solicitors Regulation Authority. 

The ruling has also prompted concern about its impact on the development of the next generation of legal professionals. Much of the learning that takes place in law firms is experiential - junior employees often gain practice by carrying out tasks under supervision, gradually building up the skills and confidence needed to qualify. If those opportunities are scaled back too far, the pathway to qualification may become narrower and steeper. The fear is that the ruling may unintentionally slow down the development of young talent, limiting the scope of what they can do until they are qualified, which may in turn create delays in the supply of future solicitors.  

Many firms rely heavily on non-qualified employees to carry out routine but important tasks. If more of these tasks have to be done by solicitors, it could put pressure on already stretched resources, leading to an increase in overheads, additional demands on senior solicitors and higher fees for clients. For those work types subject to fixed cost regimes, balancing the books becomes even more challenging. For insurers, this presents a mixed picture: while risk may be reduced by having more qualified practitioners conducting litigation, the broader sustainability of the market may come under strain if law firms are forced to shoulder significantly higher staffing costs. 

While AI will never replace the position and responsibility of a qualified solicitor, it may help bridge the gap in non-litigation support. By assisting with tasks such as research, case preparation and reviewing documents, AI could improve efficiency and free up solicitors to concentrate on the regulated aspects of litigation. The key is using it as a support tool, not a substitute for experience and knowledge of a qualified solicitor. 

Although the judgment strengthens the regulatory framework and helps to maintain the integrity of litigation, it also raises questions about how law firms will ensure that junior employees continue to learn and progress in meaningful ways. Much will depend on how law firms respond in practice. Some may choose to redesign training programmes to focus on permitted support work, finding creative ways to expose non-qualified employees to the realities of litigation without crossing into unlawful activity. Others may invest in structured training and mentoring, so that junior colleagues gain knowledge in a more formal but still practical way.

Ultimately, Mr Justice Sheldon’s ruling shouldn’t be read solely as a restriction. It’s also an invitation for the legal profession to think carefully about how the next generation of solicitors is trained. If law firms can find effective ways to balance compliance with development, the ruling doesn’t have to get in the way of progression. Instead, it can reinforce high standards while still allowing room for meaningful experiential learning within stricter boundaries. The challenge is to ensure that the door isn’t closed on opportunity, but that opportunity is managed responsibly.

It really tests the legal profession’s ability to adapt, to find new ways of training and to strike a balance between compliance and progression. Whether it’s a victory for oversight or a setback for learning will depend less on the letter of the ruling and more on the creativity and commitment of law firms in shaping the pathway forward. 

Source: Alarm over High Court "bomb" on conduct of litigation - Legal Futures