SRA rewrites supervision guidance after Mazur ruling

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has significantly updated its guidance on effective supervision following the landmark Court of Appeal ruling in *CILEX and others v Mazur and others* [2026] EWCA Civ 369. The revised 24-page guidance clarifies how firms can lawfully delegate legal work, particularly tasks within the 'conduct of litigation', to non-authorised staff. It moves away from a previous, more restrictive interpretation, now explicitly accepting that non-authorised individuals can perform such tasks under the proper direction, management, supervision, and control of an authorised person. The new guidance places a strong emphasis on robust firm-wide systems and controls, a risk-based approach to supervision, and accountability, including considerations for artificial intelligence tools and diverse working arrangements.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has recently published substantially revised guidance on effective supervision, a critical development for legal practitioners across England and Wales. This update, expanding from nine to 24 pages, directly responds to the Court of Appeal's pivotal judgment in *CILEX and others v Mazur and others* [2026] EWCA Civ 369, which provided much-needed clarity on the delegation of legal work to non-authorised staff. The ruling addressed a contentious area concerning the 'conduct of litigation' and the extent to which tasks could be performed by individuals not directly authorised to undertake reserved legal activities.

Prior to the *Mazur* decision, there was considerable uncertainty, exacerbated by a High Court judgment, regarding the precise boundaries of delegation, particularly for tasks falling within the scope of litigation. The SRA's previous stance was perceived by some as overly restrictive, suggesting that non-authorised individuals could only 'support' authorised lawyers rather than actively perform litigation tasks under supervision. The new guidance aims to resolve this ambiguity, offering a more practical framework for firms to ensure compliance while leveraging the skills of their entire workforce. This article will delve into the background of the *Mazur* ruling, analyse the key changes introduced by the SRA's revised guidance, and explore the practical implications for legal firms.

The regulatory landscape for solicitors in England and Wales is primarily governed by the Legal Services Act 2007, which defines 'reserved legal activities,' including the 'conduct of litigation,' that can only be carried out by authorised persons. Section 14 of the Act makes it an offence for an unauthorised person to carry on such activities. The SRA, as the professional regulator, enforces these provisions and sets the standards for solicitors and firms through its Standards and Regulations, which came into force on 25 November 2019.

Central to these regulations are the SRA Principles, which outline the fundamental tenets of ethical behaviour expected of all those regulated, and the separate Codes of Conduct for Solicitors (individuals) and Firms. These frameworks mandate that solicitors ensure the service they provide to clients is competent and delivered in a timely manner, which inherently requires effective supervision of all work. Specifically, paragraph 3.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, Registered European Lawyers (RELs) and Registered Foreign Lawyers (RFLs) requires individuals to 'effectively supervise work being done for clients.' Before the *Mazur* ruling, the SRA's interpretation of this duty, particularly concerning the delegation of litigation tasks to non-authorised staff, was a source of confusion and concern for many firms, leading to a more cautious approach where non-authorised staff were largely confined to a 'support' role in litigation.

The Court of Appeal's decision in *CILEX and others v Mazur and others* [2026] EWCA Civ 369 marked a significant turning point. The Court clarified that an unauthorised person can lawfully perform any tasks within the scope of the conduct of litigation for, and on behalf of, an authorised individual, such as a solicitor, provided that the authorised individual retains responsibility and exercises 'proper direction, management supervision and control.' This ruling effectively overturned a previous High Court judgment that had created considerable uncertainty by suggesting certain steps could not be delegated.

In response, the SRA's revised guidance on effective supervision, now a comprehensive 24-page document, explicitly aligns with the Court of Appeal's interpretation. It moves away from the previous, more restrictive view that non-authorised individuals could only 'support' litigation, acknowledging that they can now lawfully carry out tasks within the conduct of litigation under appropriate oversight. The guidance places a strong emphasis on firms' systems and controls, recognising that effective supervision can be achieved through structured processes and case management systems, not solely through direct, file-by-file oversight. This means firms must have clear escalation procedures and supervisors must retain oversight of how matters progress, demonstrating that they have directed the work either through specific instructions or compliant processes.

The updated guidance also introduces practical considerations, such as the need for firms to document their decision-making regarding supervision arrangements. It advocates for a risk-based approach, urging firms to consider the complexity of the work, the experience and competence of both the supervisor and the supervisee, and the supervisor's capacity. Crucially, it clarifies that supervisors do not necessarily need to be partners, but must possess the requisite competence for the role. Furthermore, the SRA has proactively included guidance on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in legal work, stressing that an authorised individual must remain accountable for the process and the work produced, even when AI is utilised to support supervision. The guidance also addresses the nuances of in-person, hybrid, and remote supervision, reflecting modern working practices.

While the *Mazur* judgment primarily focused on the conduct of litigation, the SRA's guidance applies to all forms of legal work, reinforcing the general principles of supervision across practice areas. The SRA has warned that enforcement action could still follow if an unauthorised individual effectively takes responsibility for litigation by making substantive decisions or determining strategy without proper oversight. This underscores that while delegation is now more permissible, the ultimate responsibility for client work and compliance with SRA Principles, such as acting in the best interests of each client and upholding public trust, remains firmly with the authorised individual and the firm.

The SRA's revised supervision guidance, prompted by the *Mazur* ruling, offers much-needed clarity and flexibility for legal firms in delegating work to non-authorised staff. Practitioners must recognise that while the scope for delegation has broadened, the fundamental duty of effective supervision and ultimate accountability remains with authorised individuals. This necessitates a thorough review and potential overhaul of existing supervision policies, processes, and training programs within firms.

Firms should prioritise developing robust systems and controls that clearly define delegation parameters, escalation procedures, and documentation requirements. A risk-based approach tailored to the specific work, the competence of staff, and the complexity of matters will be crucial. Furthermore, the inclusion of guidance on AI tools highlights the SRA's forward-looking approach, requiring firms to integrate these considerations into their supervisory frameworks. Staying abreast of this updated guidance and proactively implementing its principles will be essential for firms to ensure compliance, mitigate regulatory risk, and continue delivering competent and ethical legal services in a modern legal landscape.