Updated guidance follows the Court of Appeal’s clarification of how litigation work may be delegated to unauthorised staff
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has updated its supervision guidance following the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys, providing firms with greater clarity on the delegation of litigation work and the responsibilities of authorised lawyers and supervisors.
The revised guidance follows the court’s confirmation in March 2026 that an unauthorised individual may lawfully perform tasks falling within the conduct of litigation for and on behalf of an authorised person, including a solicitor, an appropriately authorised legal executive or an appropriately authorised barrister.
The authorised individual remains responsible for the delegated tasks and is therefore the person carrying on the conduct of litigation. The SRA said solicitors must ensure their arrangements allow them to exercise “proper direction, management, supervision and control” over work carried out by unauthorised staff.
The judgment addressed uncertainty among firms about the extent to which paralegals, trainees and other unauthorised employees could undertake litigation work. The SRA said its updated guidance was intended to explain how the ruling and existing regulatory requirements should be applied in practice.
The regulator stressed that the requirement to maintain effective supervision was not new and that the guidance did not introduce standards or requirements beyond those already contained in legislation and the SRA Standards and Regulations.
The updated document includes new case studies and further detail on delegation, supervision arrangements, accountability, claims-management activities and the use of artificial intelligence. Firms have been advised to read the guidance and review whether their current arrangements are lawful and effective.
Jonathan Peddie, SRA Executive Director, Investigations, Enforcement and Litigation, said: ‘We know that recent developments have been concerning for many firms, so we are pleased to be able to release our updated guidance. It was important, given the previous uncertainty, that we took the time to review the position thoroughly and collaboratively with others from across the legal sector.
‘The court has provided clarity and our overall position remains the same – firms should take a risk-based approach tailored to their circumstances. Each firm will be different, but hopefully our case studies will help them as they exercise their professional judgement in practice.’
The guidance clarifies that a supervisor does not have to be an individual’s line manager or a partner. However, anyone undertaking supervisory responsibilities must consider whether they have sufficient expertise and skills to understand the work, together with the capacity and practical ability to exercise effective oversight.
Firms should take account of the nature and complexity of the work, the experience and competence of the person carrying it out, the risks to clients and others, the supervisor’s workload and the number of people they are expected to oversee. Higher-risk or more complex matters may require closer supervision and more frequent review.
Delegation may be arranged by assigning particular tasks directly or through a defined process setting out the activities that unauthorised staff may undertake. In either case, the instructions and limits of the delegated authority must be clear and should not depend on assumptions by the supervisor or the person carrying out the work.
Firms may incorporate delegation arrangements into case-management systems, provided tasks are clearly allocated and supervisors review relevant management information, including caseloads and the progress and flow of cases. Clear procedures should also require unusual, urgent or non-standard issues to be escalated to an authorised supervisor.
Delegation and supervision arrangements should be established before work begins and supported by proportionate auditing and quality-assurance measures. An authorised person must be able to demonstrate that they directed the progress of a matter, either through case-specific instructions or through a compliant process governing routine work and the escalation of non-standard issues.
The guidance also says firms should record the supervision arrangements chosen for each area of work and the risk-based reasons for their approach. They should set clear expectations about how supervision is documented, including through file reviews, casework discussions, one-to-one meetings, emails or file notes where appropriate.
The SRA has advised firms to ensure their existing delegation, supervision and escalation arrangements are consistent with the Court of Appeal’s ruling and the updated guidance. Where systems and controls are inadequate, firms should take prompt steps to review and correct them.
The regulator warned that enforcement action may follow where an unauthorised person effectively assumes responsibility for litigation. Examples could include making substantive decisions about proceedings, determining litigation strategy or dealing with the court and other parties as though responsible for the case, rather than acting on behalf of and under the direction of an authorised person.
A serious failure in a firm’s supervision systems and controls may lead to enforcement action even where the failure has not caused direct harm to clients.
The guidance was reviewed before publication by organisations including the Law Society, CILEX Regulation, government departments, the Legal Aid Agency and the Law Centres Network.
The SRA said it would continue working with stakeholders and expand its collection of case studies to ensure the guidance remained practical and effective.