By overturning the restrictive approach adopted at first instance, the Court of Appeal in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2026] EWCA Civ 369 confirmed that an unauthorised individual can (under Schedule 2, paragraph 4(1) of the Legal Services Act 2007) carry out tasks that amount to the conduct of litigation for and on behalf of an authorised person. The authorised person retains responsibility for the tasks conducted by an unauthorised person. Details of what constitutes proper management supervision and control by the authorised person were said to be a matter for regulators, although the court specified that the appropriate level of supervision may be higher or lower depending on the circumstances.
While no Guidance has yet emanated from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) on these points, on 13 April 2026 the Law Society issued a “Practice Note” entitled “Mazur and the conduct of litigation” setting out its views of the landscape following the Court of Appeal’s judgment[1] and making clear that the SRA was updating its Supervision Guidance.
In this brief article, Benjamin Fowler and Ryan Fincham summarise the Law Society’s core points so far.
The overall approach
The Practice Note sets out a framework centred on supervision, control and retained responsibility. Whilst previous Law Society Practice Notes from 2025 reflected the first instance decision in Mazur that an unauthorised person could not carry out the conduct of litigation under the supervision of an authorised person, the new Practice Note provides that tasks which constitute the conduct of litigation can be carried out by non-authorised persons under supervision, provided that an authorised persons retains responsibility and control. In the Law Society’s approach, supervision has replaced prohibition as the core safeguard, and the firm bears the responsibility for establishing that such supervision, management and control is in place.
The Law Society suggests that firms should have clear oversight of work being done. The level of oversight will depend in practice on the following risk factors:
- the complexity and nature of the work itself;
- the experience, competence and capacity of the unauthorised individual; and
- the availability of alternative means of support.
The focus is on both the task involved and the individual undertaking it.
The Practice Note then gives further detail on how the Law Society sees the role of authorised individuals. They must be appropriately qualified to both (i) establish what adequate supervision looks like; and (ii) oversee the work. It is unlikely to be sufficient for them to supervise work in an area where they have limited experience or competence.
The Practice Note then advises firms that they will wish to ensure that:
- An authorised individual is responsible for each matter.
- There is a clear record of delegated instructions which covers all key decisions and formal steps in proceedings.
- All work is supervised in line with wider regulatory obligations.
Instructions may be specific or general, taking the form of policies, guides or protocols. The Law Society states that instructions must be given to the unauthorised individual who is carrying out the task in question. An unauthorised individual cannot sub-delegate the conduct of litigation; this breaks the “nexus” with the authorised individual for and on whose behalf the task is carried out. This leaves open a question as to how in practice (for example) a team of paralegals of different levels will be able to operate.
What steps does the Law Society think solicitors should take?
The Practice Note goes on to suggest practical steps that firms can take to demonstrate compliance post-Mazur. These include:
- Ensuring that policies and procedures document steps involved in litigation and who carries each step out, training all staff involved in litigation on those policies and procedures and ensuring that they are being followed in practice.
- Ensuring that formal trigger points which amount to the conduct of litigation are the responsibility of the authorised person.
- Documenting delegations and decision-making to demonstrate that the authorised individual has applied their professional judgment to those formal trigger points.
The clear thrust of the Practice Note is that firms should be able to show that authorised individuals retain responsibility for the conduct of litigation and exercise professional judgment at each key stage of proceedings.
Where a breach of SRA Guidance is identified, the Law Society’s Practice Note says that that firms should act promptly to (i) review and correct the position; (ii) understand and address any impacts on the handling of clients’ cases; and (iii) consider and document carefully whether breach is serious and needs to be reported.
Where an unauthorised person has conducted litigation in a case, the Law Society acknowledges that different judges may take different views as to the steps to be taken. Firms may wish to familiarise themselves with the views of their local judiciary before deciding whether a formal application is required. The Practice Note reminds firms that straying into improper satellite litigation may amount to misconduct.
While formal guidance from the SRA is awaited, this Practice Note give a clear insight into the Law Society’s views of the impact of Mazur. While the Law Society provides the caveat that its Practice Note is its own view of good practice; is not legal advice; and is not the only means of complying with regulatory obligations, at least until SRA guidance is provided, firms will likely feel obliged to give serious weight to the Practice Note. Failing to do so could well place a burden on firms to justify to regulators why an alternative approach was appropriate.
Some points in the new Practice Note are, however, open to question, for instance:
- The onerous nature of the supervision/record keeping suggestions.
- The suggestion that supervision arrangements form part of the enquiry as to whether a criminal offence has been committed under the LSA 2007 in the “Consequences of Breach” section.
Artificial Intelligence
Finally, in addressing the issue of what amounts to the conduct of litigation, the Law Society states that the legitimacy of using AI to make decisions that would amount to conducting litigation if taken by an individual “remains unresolved.”
Notably the Law Society then goes on to state that firms may want to put in place processes to ensure the quality of AI output and its compliance with regulatory provisions and obligations to the court. This guidance treats AI tools in a somewhat similar manner to unauthorised individuals. The full implications of AI decision-making under the LSA 2007 are yet to be fully worked out and the issue is certain to be the subject of further regulatory guidance in the future.
More detail as to how various regulators are dealing with AI can be found at 4 New Square’s AI Hub.
[1] A Practice Note is said to be “the Law Society’s view of good practice” and does not have the status of legal advice.
© Benjamin Fowler and Ryan Fincham, 4 New Square Chambers, April 2026
This article is not intended as a substitute for legal advice. Advice about a given set of facts should always be taken.
