Mazur: a “storm in a teacup”? Not quite!

This alert follows the handing down on 31 March 2026 of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys (on an appeal by CILEX, with interested parties including the Law Society, SRA and the Legal Services Board).

We look at what this means for the profession.

What’s the background?

Anyone reading this article is likely to know this case all too well already. By way of reminder, in September 2025, the High Court held  that individuals working in a law firm (or law centre), who are not authorised individuals (for example trainees or Legal Executives without litigation practising rights), are “unauthorised individuals” and therefore:

1. They are not permitted to “carry on the conduct of litigation” under the Legal Services Act 2007 (the “2007 Act”).
2. Conducting litigation under supervision by authorised individuals would not prevent them from being involved in “carrying on the conduct of litigation”.
3. By doing so, they would potentially be committing a criminal offence/acting in contempt of Court.

The appeal was brought by CILEX in an effort to overturn this decision, not least in light of the significant impact on the profession, but particularly on unauthorised individuals, some of whom had lost their jobs after the first instance decision despite their many years’ experience.

What did the appeal decide?

In welcome news for unauthorised individuals – and we say for the profession as a whole – the Court of Appeal held:

1. The 2007 Act was not designed to change the pre-existing regime, under which there was a “widespread, general and well-regulated practice of delegation by solicitors to unqualified individuals”.
2. Accordingly, it is permissible for “the solicitor principal to decide what tasks should be delegated and to whom”.
3. That was, and remains, subject to the solicitor putting “in place proper arrangements for the management and supervision of that work”.
4. So an unauthorised individual can lawfully conduct litigation if they do so under the appropriate supervision of an authorised individual.

The Court expressly stated:

“An unauthorised person can lawfully perform any tasks, which are within the scope of conduct of litigation, for…an authorised individual such as a solicitor or appropriately authorised CILEX member. The authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the authorised person. The authorised person is, therefore, the person carrying on the conduct of litigation. The unauthorised person is not carrying on the conduct of litigation and does not commit an offence. The delegation of tasks by the authorised individual…requires proper management supervision and control.”

This simple proposition will be seen as many as a return to the way things have always been. It is a triumph of common sense in many respects.

Can Mazur now be forgotten?

When Mazur was first decided, many predicted that it would be successfully appealed and that it would amount to nothing more than a ‘storm in a teacup’. Can the profession move on, and forget it ever happened?

Not quite.  Unauthorised individuals are still at risk of committing an offence if they conduct litigation without appropriate supervision by an authorised individual.   This episode – and the judgment itself – therefore reminds us of the importance of supervision. What that “supervision” looks like will depend on the circumstances, but it is essential, in particular because the Court declined to prescribe what acts do and do notamount to the “conduct of litigation”. That, in our view, is sensible and unavoidable.

What this does mean, though, is that those responsible for supervision must ensure that there are appropriate measures in place to supervise unauthorised individuals. The Court gave the example of a regular supervision meeting, during which a sample of work is reviewed. That might be a novel way of working for some firms, but whether that is the approach that is adopted, or a more specific ‘case by case’ form of supervision, one thing is clear – proper supervision must be provided. The former example, provided by the Court, is only likely in our view to be sufficient in the most formulaic, low value litigation.

Firms should take care to follow the SRA’s Guidance on “effective supervision”. This may be revised, not least in light of the likely criticism of the SRA in light of the appeal.

For some firms, this will make no difference, as supervision has always been important and an essential part of both risk management and ensuring that individuals, regardless of authorisation, are appropriately supported.

Firms with teams headed by unauthorised individuals are still going to need to tread carefully. If possible, we recommend any such unauthorised individuals complete the relevant litigation qualification to enable them to become “authorised”. Alternatively, teams structured in this way will need to be supervised by an authorised individual, and appropriate policies and procedures will need to be implemented, formally, to prevent problems.

What about firms that have self-reported to the SRA already?

We suspect that the SRA will – or at least, should – be prepared to show contrition on this issue. We cannot see how it can criticise firms for failing to properly supervise unauthorised individuals in circumstances where it has taken an incorrect approach to this issue on, we think, three separate occasions.

Mazur has, however, allowed the Court an opportunity to remind the profession of its responsibilities. Future transgressions may not be treated with the understanding that, we predict, the SRA will have no choice but to demonstrate now.

Our view

The appeal is welcome news for the profession – and by “profession”, we mean all of us – both authorised and unauthorised individuals. Far from creating a two-tier system, the profession needs to ensure that authorised and unauthorised individuals work together, in light of the Court’s comments but also in recognition of the important role of unauthorised individuals, not least given their importance in ensuring access to justice and often in providing the diversity the profession needs to remain relevant and effective.