Fee-earner with conduct: what it means and why it matters

The "fee-earner with conduct" is the person responsible for running a client's matter day to day: making decisions on it, supervising anyone else who works on it, and answering for it to the client, the firm and, where relevant, the court. Other people may do work on the file, but one named fee-earner has conduct of it.

The phrase appears on client care letters, in file notes, on court documents and in job adverts ("you will have conduct of your own caseload"). It sounds like procedure, but it is really a statement about responsibility, and in litigation that responsibility has been under close scrutiny since 2025. This post explains what it means, what it covers, and what changed. It is part of our series on what a fee-earner is. It is not regulatory advice: how your firm allocates conduct and supervision is a question for your COLP.

What does "having conduct of a matter" mean?

It means being the person in charge of the file. In practice that includes:

• Decisions. Advising the client, deciding strategy, and deciding what happens next.
• Delegation. Choosing which tasks go to a trainee, paralegal or secretary, and checking the result.
• Deadlines. Knowing the key dates and making sure they are met.
• Client communication. Being the client's main point of contact, or making sure someone is, and keeping them informed.
• Accountability. Answering for the file if something goes wrong.

"Conduct" is not the same as doing all the work. On a busy file, most of the hours may be recorded by juniors. The fee-earner with conduct is the one who directs and oversees that work.

Why does a client care letter name the fee-earner with conduct?

Because the client is entitled to know who is responsible for their matter and who supervises that person. For certain services, the SRA Transparency Rules also require firms to publish the experience and qualifications of anyone carrying out the work, and of their supervisors. Naming the person with conduct, and their supervisor, is the natural way to meet both expectations in a client care letter. Our sibling posts on client care letters and the client intake process cover the rest of that first communication.

Does the fee-earner with conduct have to be a solicitor?

Not always. In many areas of work, a chartered legal executive, a senior paralegal or another experienced fee-earner may run a file, under appropriate supervision. What matters is whether the work includes reserved legal activities, which the Legal Services Act 2007 limits to authorised persons. They are the exercise of a right of audience, the conduct of litigation, reserved instrument activities, probate activities, notarial activities and the administration of oaths.

That list is where the word "conduct" gets confusing, because "conduct of litigation" is itself a reserved activity, and it is not quite the same thing as "having conduct of a matter". A non-authorised fee-earner can have day-to-day conduct of a non-contentious file. Litigation is where the distinction has been tested.

What did the Mazur case decide about conduct of litigation?

In September 2025 the High Court held in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys that only authorised individuals could conduct litigation, which many read as meaning non-authorised fee-earners could no longer run litigated files even under supervision. It caused real concern across litigation teams.

On 31 March 2026 the Court of Appeal overturned that decision ([2026] EWCA Civ 369). As Clyde & Co summarise the judgment:

• An unauthorised person can lawfully perform tasks within the scope of the conduct of litigation for an authorised individual, such as a solicitor or an appropriately authorised CILEX member.
• That delegation requires proper management, supervision and control.
• The authorised individual keeps responsibility for the tasks delegated, and the unauthorised person is not carrying on the conduct of litigation.

The same summary notes that the judgment does not set out precisely which acts count as conduct of litigation, and that an unauthorised person acting without appropriate supervision is still at risk. So the practical answer for litigation is: a non-authorised fee-earner can do the work day to day, provided an authorised individual is responsible for it and genuinely supervises it. Read the judgment itself, and take advice, before changing how your firm allocates litigation work.

What does supervision look like in practice?

The Court of Appeal's language, as summarised, is "proper management supervision and control". It did not write a procedure, and the right shape will differ between a two-person team and a volume litigation department. The questions below are the ones worth taking to your COLP when you design yours. They are prompts, not answers:

• How often is each delegated file reviewed, and by whom? Is that recorded?
• Which steps need the authorised individual's sign-off before they happen, rather than after?
• How does a junior reach their supervisor on a day the supervisor is in court or on leave?
• How is a new matter allocated, and who decides whether it needs an authorised person from the start?
• What happens when a supervisor leaves? Is responsibility for their files transferred on a named date?
• Can the firm show the supervision later? A file note of a review is evidence; a hallway conversation is not.

The last point is easy to underestimate. Supervision that happens but leaves no trace is hard to demonstrate if a file is ever questioned, whether by a client, a regulator or a court.

Who has conduct if the fee-earner is away or leaves?

Someone must, at all times. The common gaps are holidays, long trials, sickness and departures. A simple rule helps: every file has a named fee-earner with conduct and a named cover, and the cover is recorded on the file rather than agreed in a corridor. When a fee-earner leaves, conduct should be formally transferred, the client told, and the new fee-earner given a handover note. We cover what a good handover contains in law firm client handoffs.

A checklist for allocating conduct

For firms reviewing how they allocate conduct, perhaps after the Mazur judgment, a working checklist to discuss with your COLP:

• Every open file names a fee-earner with conduct and a supervisor, in the case management system rather than only on paper.
• Every litigated file has an authorised individual responsible for it, and that is visible on the file.
• Supervision is scheduled, for example a regular file review, rather than left to "ask if you need anything".
• Supervisors have time for it, reflected in their targets. See setting fee-earner targets.
• Cover is named for holidays and court days.
• Client care letters match reality. The person named is the person doing the work, and the client is told when it changes.
• Delegated tasks are recorded, so that who did what can be shown later.

What does "conduct of your own caseload" mean in a job advert?

It means the role runs files, rather than assisting on someone else's. Expect to be the client's main contact, to make day-to-day decisions and to manage deadlines, with a supervisor above you. It is worth asking at interview how big the caseload is, who supervises, how often files are reviewed, and who covers your calls when you are in court or on leave. The answers say more about the job than the salary band does.

What does "fee-earner with conduct" mean in legal aid and costs?

The phrase also appears in legal aid and costs contexts, where the grade and experience of the person doing the work affects what is paid. For costs assessment, the court's guidance grades fee-earners from A to D by qualification and experience, and expects work to be done at an appropriate level. Having conduct does not change a fee-earner's grade; it describes their responsibility on the file, not the rate for their time. See fee-earner grades A to D explained.

What should a handover note contain when conduct changes?

Enough for the new fee-earner to pick up the file without re-reading all of it on day one:

• Where the matter stands, in three or four sentences.
• Key dates in the next three months, and anything already overdue.
• What the client has been told, and what they are expecting next.
• Open questions and who is waiting on whom.
• Anything sensitive about the client or the other side that is not obvious from the documents.
• Who has been doing the work, and what has been delegated to whom.

A note like this takes twenty minutes to write and saves hours of rediscovery.

What gets in the way of having conduct properly?

Mostly time. A fee-earner with conduct of a full caseload is responsible for every deadline, every client and every junior on those files. When their day is fragmented by inbound calls, new enquiries that land on their desk and repeated "any update?" questions, the first thing to go is the unhurried oversight that conduct requires. That is a practical risk, not just a wellbeing one: a missed deadline or an unsupervised task is still the responsibility of the person with conduct.

A hypothetical illustration, with invented figures: a litigation associate with conduct of 45 files supervises two paralegals. On a court day she is out of the office from 9am to 4pm, and 11 calls come in for her. Six are clients wanting an update, three are new enquiries, and two are paralegals with questions. Without cover, all 11 are waiting for her at 4pm, and the paralegals have either paused or pressed on without her. Neither is what supervision is supposed to look like.

Where does WasilX fit?

In the calls that pull a fee-earner with conduct away from their files. Each fee-earner's personal assistant covers their calls while they are in court and drafts matter updates for the fee-earner to approve, and Cam, our AI Engagement Coordinator, takes calls on the firm's line at any hour, says it is AI, asks the firm's own qualifying questions, books the call back and sends the firm a summary. Neither takes conduct of anything; that stays with your people. If you would like to see how it would fit your team, let's talk.

Frequently asked questions

What does "fee-earner with conduct" mean? The fee-earner responsible for running a matter: making decisions on it, supervising anyone else who works on it, and answering for it to the client, the firm and, where relevant, the court.

Does the person with conduct have to be a solicitor? Not necessarily. Non-authorised fee-earners can run many kinds of files under supervision. Reserved legal activities, including the conduct of litigation, are limited to authorised persons, and in litigation an authorised individual must remain responsible.

What did Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys decide? On 31 March 2026 the Court of Appeal held that an unauthorised person can carry out litigation tasks for an authorised individual under proper supervision and control, with the authorised individual keeping responsibility. It overturned the High Court's September 2025 decision.

Is "having conduct" the same as "conduct of litigation"? No. Having conduct of a matter describes day-to-day responsibility for any file. The conduct of litigation is a specific reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007.

Who has conduct when a fee-earner is on holiday? Whoever the firm has named as cover. Every file should have a named fee-earner with conduct and a named cover, recorded on the file.