Latest Update – 27^th October 2025

Introduction

The SRA have issued under their HOT TOPICS areas, a guidance note on Mazur – https://www.sra.org.uk/home/hot-topics/conducting-litigation/.

As will be seen, this does not really take us forward, and the guidance rests with the same output provided so far by the Law Society and CILEx.

There remains no guidance on how the SRA will approach firms that have acted in contravention of the Legal Services Act 2007 and if they expect firms that have to now self report. We hope this will be clearer very shortly, enabling firms to decide what to do. The SRA have stopped at advising:

“Firms and solicitors should therefore make their own assessment in light of the case law, obtain independent legal advice if necessary and keep the arrangements for the supervision of unauthorised persons under review. Our guidance recommends that firms should maintain records of their decision-making and work processes so as to comply with 2.2 Code of Conduct for Firms”

The SRA have referred firms to their previous guidance notes on the following topics:

1. Effective supervision
2. SRA enforcement strategy
3. Bringing criminal proceedings

It remains our view to hold tight on a self report but to record a breach internally and await guidance. As soon as there is a more solid guidance on this point, we will provide a further update. Equally, if our view changes, we will provide an update.  

What the SRA Says About Litigation Supervision

A summary of the SRA’s position is:

• Conducting litigation stands as one of six reserved legal activities under the Legal Services Act 2007. This means only authorised persons: or those specifically exempt, can conduct litigation work. The Act provides limited guidance (or clear guidance) on how unauthorized individuals can support litigation or how authorized persons should supervise such support, creating practical challenges for firms.
• The SRA acknowledges no bright line exists between conducting and supporting litigation and assessment remains entirely fact-dependent. This approach requires firms to evaluate their working arrangements carefully, rather than relying on standardised policies.
• Firms need to consider what an authorised and non-authorised person can do, with consideration of:
  • who has assumed ultimate responsibility for the steps taken in the litigation?
  • who is exercising their judgment in respect of how it is being progressed (on a day-to-day basis in terms of steps taken and ultimate responsibility for direction of the matter)?
• The starting point remains the statutory language, with narrow construction, given the penal nature of the legislation. This conservative approach means firms should err on the side of caution when designing support arrangements.
• Firms are encouraged to review their supervision policy and document their approach.
• Firms are also encouraged to look at the individuals in the Firm and identify their status and whether exemptions apply.

Supervision Requirements

Effective supervision forms the cornerstone of compliant litigation support arrangements. The SRA requires firms to consider supervision in the context of practice area complexity, individual caseloads, staff experience levels, and overall team composition.

Supervision cannot be merely nominal or reactive. Authorised persons must maintain active involvement in case direction and strategic decision-making. This involvement should be documented and reviewable, creating an audit trail of authorized person engagement.

The guidance emphasizes that supervision arrangements should be kept under ongoing review. What works for straightforward matters may prove inadequate for complex commercial litigation or high-value claims. Firms must adjust supervision intensity based on case complexity and staff capability.

Regular case reviews, documented decision-making processes, and clear escalation procedures form essential components of effective supervision frameworks. These elements help demonstrate compliance whilst supporting efficient case management.

Next Steps For Law Firms

We previously published a list of tasks that firms can consider, directing their staff on what constitutes conduct and what constitutes support. This has been included below for ease of reference*.

This list should be considered by each firm and interpreted and updated as they best see fit.

We are not saying this is a definitive list, and some firms may not agree with our summary of what constitutes conduct and what constitutes support.

What is important is to ensure there is a list and guidance for your staff, and that this is well documented in case of a challenge at a later date by the SRA.

Contact Us

To ask any questions about the Regulation and Compliance Office and how we can support your Law Firm, please call us on 0203 985 8550, complete the online enquiry form, or email us info@regulationandcomplianceoffice.co.uk 

Compliance and Regulation Support Services

All firms must demonstrate and uphold high standards in their AML systems and processes, as well as in their management and supervision. This also involves outlining how the firm operates, including the conduct of staff in accordance with established policies, controls, and procedures.

At the Regulation & Compliance Office, we can offer a number of outsourced support solutions, including:

• Regulation & Compliance Service – Our Regulation and Compliance Service, Inc. Risk Management Assessment and AML Risk, provides a cost-effective but essential solution for law firms to ensure they achieve a compliant environment. We work with firms of all types, from sole practitioners through to partnerships, Limited Companies and ABSs. We recognise that it is essential to recognise how a firm implements compliance to tailor the solution to each firm’s working practices. This is why our service is completely bespoke to each firm we work with.
• Regulation & Compliance Outsource Guidance and Support Service – This service provides law firms with a cost-effective outsourced solution which sees the compliance managers of RACO take on the day-to-day guidance and support expected to be provided by COLPs, COFAs, Data Compliance Officers, MLROs and MLCOs. This addition to the Regulation and Compliance Service—including Risk Management and AML Risk—relieves the Compliance Officers from most of the day-to-day burden of keeping up with regulatory requirements and ensures staff have access to compliance and risk advice when they need it.
• Due Diligence & Risk Assessment Service – At the Regulation and Compliance Office (RACO), we provide law firms with a seamless, outsourced solution for Client Due Diligence (CDD) and Risk Assessments. Our Due Diligence and Risk Assessment Service has been designed to enable law firms to focus on the provision of the legal services while we collate the necessary documentation for Due Diligence, Enhanced Due Diligence (where needed), and completion of the Client and Matter Risk Assessment, which must be completed on all matters in scope of the Money Laundering Regulations 2017.
• AML Training Courses – Our Typical AML Training Includes:
  • AML Training for ALL staff to meet the firm’s obligation to provide annual training.
  • One-to-one training for the MLRO and MLCO on their obligations and requirements.

*Conduct v Support – Updated Table

Litigation (General)

Litigation (Family)

Conveyancing

Rights of Audience**

Probate Services**

Notary Services

Administration of Oaths

**However, please refer to exemptions under Schedule 3 (3) and 3 (4) of the LSA 2007 which apply generally and importantly to non litigation areas such as probate and property.

For the purposes of Family proceedings, the rights of advocacy are provided under the LSA Exemptions, Schedule 3 (7) in relation to a person who is assisting in the conduct of litigation under the instructions of an Authorised Person for proceedings which are not reserved family proceedings and are being heard in chambers and not in an open court.

For the purposes of Property and Probate matters and reserved tasks, the right to conduct such tasks can be allocated, under supervision, to an exempt person when, under Schedule 3 (3) and 3 (4) the exempt person (non-authorised) is carrying on the activity at the direction and under the supervision of an Authorised Person. For this exemption to apply, the exempt person must be employed, must be connected (through supervision and employment) to the Authorised Person supervising the task and the Authorised Person must be a manager or employee of the Firm and be an Authorised Person in relation to the activity.

Where these exemptions apply, conduct can be performed under appropriate supervision (excluding litigation).

Access previous articles here:

• Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – Update Following Guidance From The Law Society
• Mazur Update – CILEx members can conduct Property and Probate services
• Mazur & Stuart v. Charles Russell Speechleys LLP – Should Firms Make a Self-Report?
• Mazur & Stuart v. Charles Russell Speechleys LLP – FOLLOW UP: Conduct v Support