Mazur Court of Appeal Decision 2026: What It Means for Law Firms and Locum Lawyers

Originally published in October 2025. Updated in August 2026 following the Court of Appeal judgment and updated SRA guidance.

Introduction

In September 2025, the High Court decision in Mazur and another v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP caused considerable concern across the legal profession.

The High Court concluded that an unauthorised individual could not conduct litigation simply because they were supervised by an authorised solicitor. This raised serious questions for law firms employing paralegals, litigation executives and Chartered Legal Executives without their own litigation practice rights.

However, the legal position changed significantly on 31 March 2026 when the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Mazur and another v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369.

The Court of Appeal rejected the High Court’s restrictive interpretation. It confirmed that an unauthorised person may perform tasks falling within the conduct of litigation for and on behalf of an authorised individual, provided that the authorised individual retains responsibility and exercises proper direction, supervision and control.

The decision provides welcome clarification, but it does not give law firms permission to delegate litigation without appropriate safeguards.

What Was the Mazur Case About?

The underlying proceedings concerned the recovery of an unpaid legal bill.

Charles Russell Speechlys LLP instructed Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors to pursue the debt. Much of the casework was undertaken by a litigation executive who was described as the firm’s Head of Commercial Litigation but did not hold a current practising certificate.

The defendants questioned whether he was legally entitled to undertake the litigation work.

The High Court considered whether an individual who was not personally authorised to conduct litigation could nevertheless carry out litigation tasks while working under the supervision of an authorised solicitor.

In September 2025, the High Court decided that supervision did not provide the necessary entitlement. Its judgment suggested that an unauthorised person could support an authorised solicitor but could not themselves undertake tasks amounting to the conduct of litigation.

That interpretation had potentially serious implications for firms whose litigation departments relied on paralegals, trainees, litigation executives and Chartered Legal Executives working under supervision.

What Did the Court of Appeal Decide?

The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives appealed against the High Court’s interpretation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and clarified the distinction between carrying on the conduct of litigation and performing individual litigation tasks.

Only an appropriately authorised person may carry on the conduct of litigation. However, that person does not have to perform every task personally.

An unauthorised member of staff may perform tasks within the scope of conducting litigation when:

• The work is undertaken for and on behalf of an authorised individual.
• The authorised individual retains formal and professional responsibility for the work.
• The authorised individual properly directs, manages, supervises and controls the work.
• The delegation is genuine and does not simply conceal the fact that an unauthorised person is running the litigation independently.

The authorised individual remains the person carrying on the conduct of litigation. The unauthorised person is performing delegated tasks on that individual’s behalf.

The complete Court of Appeal judgment is available from the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website.

Does This Mean Firms Can Return to Their Previous Arrangements?

Not necessarily. The Court of Appeal decision removes the suggestion that every task falling within the conduct of litigation must be performed personally by an authorised individual. It does not permit nominal or superficial supervision. A firm cannot simply place an authorised solicitor’s name on a file while an unauthorised fee earner makes all the important decisions and runs the matter without meaningful oversight. The substance of the arrangement will matter more than job titles or descriptions contained in an employment contract.

The authorised solicitor must genuinely retain:

• Responsibility for the litigation.
• Control over the work being undertaken.
• Sufficient knowledge of the case.
• The ability to intervene when necessary.
• Responsibility for important legal, ethical and strategic decisions.

The solicitor must also have sufficient time, experience and capacity to supervise the work properly.

Updated SRA Guidance on Effective Supervision

Following the Court of Appeal decision, the Solicitors Regulation Authority updated its effective supervision guidance on 12 June 2026. The SRA makes clear that supervision must be appropriate to the risks involved. There is no single arrangement that will be suitable for every department, case or fee earner. When designing supervision arrangements, firms should consider:

• The complexity and risk of the work.
• The experience and competence of the person undertaking it.
• The potential consequences for the client if something goes wrong.
• The number of people being supervised.
• The supervisor’s own workload and availability.
• Whether the work is being undertaken in the office, remotely or on a hybrid basis.
• The stages at which documents, advice or decisions must be approved.
• How concerns and urgent issues will be escalated.

The supervisor should communicate directly with the person being supervised and review enough of their work to understand how matters are progressing. For higher-risk or complex cases, the supervisor may need awareness of every file. For more routine and standardised work, reviewing a meaningful sample may be appropriate. Simply writing a supervision policy is not enough. The firm must ensure that the arrangements operate effectively in practice.

Supervision Arrangements Should Be Recorded

The SRA expects firms and solicitors to be able to explain and justify their supervision and delegation decisions.

Firms should consider recording:

• Who is responsible for supervising each fee earner.
• Which tasks may be undertaken without prior approval.
• Which documents or communications must be approved before being sent.
• How frequently files will be reviewed.
• What must be escalated to the supervisor.
• How the arrangements will work when the supervisor is unavailable.
• Why the level of supervision is appropriate for that person and area of work.

What Does Mazur Mean for Chartered Legal Executives and Paralegals?

The Court of Appeal decision is particularly important for Chartered Legal Executives, paralegals, trainees and experienced litigation executives. An individual who does not hold their own litigation practice rights may still perform litigation tasks under appropriate supervision. However, they must not take responsibility for carrying on the litigation independently.

Some Chartered Legal Executives hold separate litigation practice rights and are authorised to conduct litigation in their own right, but others do not. Firms should therefore verify the precise authorisation and practising status of each member of their litigation team rather than relying only on their job title, qualifications or length of experience.

What Does the Decision Mean for Locum Litigation Solicitors?

The Court of Appeal decision removes one of the concerns created by the original High Court judgment, but locum litigation solicitors may still play an important role in helping firms maintain effective supervision. An experienced and appropriately authorised locum solicitor may be able to:

• Cover the absence of a supervising solicitor.
• Take responsibility for an existing litigation caseload.
• Provide additional authorised capacity during a busy period.
• Supervise paralegals, trainees or litigation executives where appropriate.
• Review higher-risk or complex files.
• Help a firm clear a backlog without weakening its supervision arrangements.
• Provide continuity while the firm recruits a permanent solicitor.

Before an assignment begins, the firm should confirm the locum’s practising status, relevant experience and any restrictions or conditions affecting their work. The parties should also agree whether the locum will be supervising others, who will supervise the locum and how responsibility for individual files will be recorded. The SRA guidance confirms that supervision requirements apply to partners, consultants and other senior lawyers as well as employees. Employing a highly experienced locum does not remove the need for the firm to have appropriate oversight and governance arrangements.

Can a Locum Supervise Staff Remotely?

Potentially, yes. The SRA does not require every supervision discussion to take place face to face. Remote and hybrid supervision can be effective where the arrangements reflect the risks involved and allow the supervisor to maintain genuine oversight. A remote supervisor should have appropriate access to:

• The firm’s case-management system.
• Relevant correspondence and documents.
• Court deadlines and limitation dates.
• File notes and attendance records.
• The person undertaking the delegated work.
• Other managers or compliance officers where escalation is required.

Regular video or telephone discussions, documented file reviews and clear approval procedures may all form part of an effective remote supervision arrangement. Physical presence in the same office does not automatically amount to effective supervision. Equally, working remotely does not necessarily prevent it.

A Practical Mazur Checklist for Law Firms

Law firms using locums, paralegals, legal executives or other fee earners in litigation should consider the following questions:

1. Who is the authorised individual responsible for carrying on the litigation?
2. Is that person appropriately experienced in the relevant area of law?
3. Do they have sufficient time and capacity to supervise effectively?
4. Does everyone involved understand which tasks have been delegated?
5. Are there clear limits on the decisions an unauthorised person may make?
6. Are important documents, advice and strategic decisions reviewed at the appropriate stage?
7. Is the supervisor sufficiently familiar with the matters for which they are responsible?
8. Are escalation procedures clearly understood?
9. Are supervision decisions and file reviews properly recorded?
10. Is there suitable cover when the usual supervisor is absent?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, the firm should review its arrangements.

Conclusion

The 2026 Court of Appeal decision provides a more practical interpretation of the Legal Services Act 2007 than the original High Court judgment. Unauthorised individuals may lawfully perform litigation tasks for and on behalf of an authorised solicitor or other appropriately authorised lawyer. However, the authorised individual must retain genuine responsibility, direction, supervision and control. The judgment therefore does not reduce the importance of authorised and experienced lawyers. It places greater emphasis on whether a firm has sufficient supervisory capacity and whether its arrangements operate effectively in practice.

Where a firm has lost a supervisor, is dealing with an unexpected absence or has more litigation work than its authorised solicitors can properly oversee, an experienced locum litigation solicitor can provide valuable temporary support.

Interim Lawyers supplies locum litigation solicitors and legal executives to law firms throughout the UK. To discuss temporary litigation cover, call us on 0800 246 5001, email jobs@interimlawyers.co.uk or register a locum assignment online.

This article provides general information and should not be treated as legal or regulatory advice. Firms should consider the Court of Appeal judgment, current SRA guidance and their own particular circumstances.