After Mazur: Delegation Is Back, But So Is Accountability.
- Ashley Barwick
- 3 days ago
- 7 min read
I've been analysing the implications of the Court of Appeal’s Mazur judgment for supervision of unauthorised individuals in legal practice, and the evolving role of regulators in ‘policing’ this area.
How will this all be carried out and moreover, how effective will it be? Let's delve and take a look.
For clarity, all the factual statements are grounded in the recent reporting on the judgment.
Supervision After Mazur: What the Court of Appeal’s Judgment Means for Legal Practice and Regulation
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur has reshaped the landscape of legal supervision in England and Wales, restoring long‑standing delegation practices and clarifying the lawful boundaries of work carried out by unauthorised individuals. For law firms, legal executives, paralegals, trainees and regulators, the ruling marks a return to normality - but with a renewed emphasis on what “appropriate supervision” really means.
A Return to Established Practice
The High Court’s earlier ruling in Mazur had sent shockwaves through the profession by suggesting that unauthorised individuals - paralegals, trainees, legal executives without independent rights - could not conduct litigation even under supervision. Many feared that routine delegation could amount to a criminal offence. The Court of Appeal has now decisively overturned that interpretation.
Master of the Rolls - Sir Colin Birss, giving the lead judgment, confirmed that an unauthorised person can lawfully perform any tasks within the scope of the conduct of litigation, provided they do so for and on behalf of an authorised individual, and that the authorised individual has put in place appropriate arrangements for supervision and delegation.
This restores what the court described as a “widespread, general and well‑regulated practice” of solicitors delegating litigation work to unqualified staff, a practice Parliament must have understood and accepted when enacting the Legal Services Act 2007.
What Counts as Supervision Now?
The judgment draws a crucial distinction between:
The performance of litigation tasks (which unauthorised individuals may carry out), and
Responsibility for those tasks, which always remains with the authorised person.
In other words, the authorised solicitor or CILEX lawyer is the one “carrying on” the conduct of litigation, even if they delegate the performance of tasks.
The Court rejected the idea that unauthorised staff are limited to “assisting” rather than “conducting” litigation. Both are lawful under supervision.
However, the judgment also makes clear that supervision is not a box‑ticking exercise. Delegation “requires proper direction, management supervision and control,” and the degree of supervision must be proportionate to the complexity and risk of the task.
For example:
Routine tasks may require only periodic review.
Complex or high‑stakes tasks may require prior approval or closer oversight.
This flexible, context‑driven approach aligns with how most firms already operate, but it also places renewed emphasis on documenting supervision arrangements and ensuring they are genuinely effective.
Implications for Law Firms and Legal Teams
The ruling is a relief for firms that rely heavily on paralegals, trainees and legal executives to deliver cost‑effective litigation services. It avoids the need for radical restructuring and preserves career pathways for junior staff.
But it also raises practical questions:
How should firms evidence “appropriate arrangements” for supervision?
What systems should be in place to ensure authorised individuals retain genuine oversight?
How will firms demonstrate compliance if challenged by regulators or in costs disputes?
The judgment does not prescribe a single model. Instead, it reinforces that responsibility cannot be delegated, even if tasks can. Firms must therefore ensure that supervision is active, proportionate and auditable.
The Role of Regulators: A New Era of Policing Supervision
The Court of Appeal was explicit that the details of what constitutes lawful supervision are a matter for regulators.
This places the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), CILEX Regulation, together with the Law Society and CILEX, in a pivotal position. Their responsibilities now include:
1. Updating Guidance and Practice Notes
The Law Society has already confirmed it is updating its guidance to align with the ruling. The SRA has acknowledged the confusion caused by the earlier judgment and is expected to clarify expectations around supervision, delegation and risk management.
2. Providing Clear Standards for “Appropriate Arrangements”
Regulators will need to define:
What constitutes adequate supervision in different contexts
How firms should document delegation
What training and competence checks are required
How responsibility is assessed in disciplinary or enforcement scenarios
Given the Court’s emphasis on proportionality, regulators may adopt a risk‑based framework rather than rigid rules.
3. Monitoring and Enforcement
With delegation now explicitly lawful, regulators will likely focus on:
Whether authorised individuals genuinely retain control and responsibility
Whether supervision failures contribute to client harm
Whether firms have systems to prevent unauthorised practice drifting into unsupervised practice
The judgment may prompt more targeted supervision‑related investigations, especially where complaints arise.
Regulators absolutely can monitor and enforce supervision standards without physically visiting most practices - but only if they use a layered, intelligence‑driven model. In fact, this is already how the SRA, CILEX Regulation and other legal regulators operate. The Mazur judgment simply makes the quality of supervision a more prominent target for that model.
Here’s how regulators can realistically police supervision remotely, and why in‑person inspections become the exception rather than the rule.
How Regulators Can Monitor Supervision Without Visiting Firms
A. Data‑Driven Risk Profiling
Regulators increasingly rely on data to identify firms whose supervision arrangements may be weak. This includes:
Patterns of complaints involving missed deadlines, procedural errors or poor communication
High staff turnover or unusually large numbers of junior/unauthorised staff
Abrupt changes in firm structure or ownership
Disproportionate volumes of high‑risk work (e.g., litigation, immigration, PI)
Previous disciplinary history
This allows regulators to focus attention on firms where poor supervision is most likely to cause harm.
B. Mandatory Reporting and Self‑Certification
Regulators can require firms to:
Confirm annually that they have “appropriate arrangements” for supervision
Describe their supervision systems and escalation processes
Identify who is responsible for oversight
Declare any material changes in staffing or structure
Self‑certification is powerful because false declarations become a regulatory issue in themselves.
C. Remote Audits and Document Requests
Regulators do not need to be physically present to examine:
Supervision policies
File review records
Training logs
Delegation frameworks
Case management system outputs
Samples of correspondence or pleadings
Most firms already store these digitally. Regulators can request them on short notice, which often reveals more than an in‑person visit would.
D. Thematic Reviews
Rather than inspecting individual firms, regulators can run sector‑wide reviews on topics like:
Supervision of paralegals
Delegation in litigation teams
Use of technology in oversight
Competence frameworks
These reviews generate guidance, identify systemic risks and highlight outlier firms that may need closer scrutiny.
E. Intelligence from Complaints and Whistleblowers
Regulators receive a steady stream of information from:
Clients
Opponents
Courts
Insurers
Former employees
Many supervision failures surface through these channels long before a regulator ever considers a site visit. The Mazur judgment will likely increase the number of complaints specifically alleging inadequate supervision, giving regulators more intelligence to act on.
F. Digital Footprints in Case Management Systems
Modern legal work leaves a trail:
Who drafted a document
Who approved it
When it was reviewed
What changes were made
Who had conduct of the file at each stage
Regulators can request audit logs to verify whether supervision was real or nominal. This is one of the most effective tools for policing delegation.
G. Targeted Interviews (Remote or In‑Person)
Regulators can interview:
Supervising solicitors
Paralegals
Trainees
Team leaders
These interviews can be conducted via video call. They often reveal whether supervision is embedded in the culture or merely written in a policy document.
When Regulators Do Need to Visit in Person
Physical inspections are still possible, but they are reserved for:
Firms with repeated or serious red flags
Situations involving suspected dishonesty or concealment
High‑risk areas such as immigration, claims management or vulnerable clients
Firms that fail to cooperate with remote audits
In-person visits are the escalation point, not the starting point.
Why This Model Works
Regulators do not need to be physically present to understand whether supervision is functioning.
Supervision failures leave evidence:
Poorly drafted documents
Missed deadlines
Inconsistent file notes
Lack of review signatures
Complaints about communication
Junior staff unable to explain their instructions
Supervisors unaware of key case details
These indicators are visible from afar.
The Mazur judgment emphasises that supervision must involve “proper direction, management and control.” Regulators can test this standard remotely by examining outcomes, processes and records.
The Real Challenge: Culture, Not Geography
The biggest barrier to effective supervision is not the regulator’s physical distance - it’s whether firms treat supervision as:
A living, active responsibility
or
A compliance box to tick
Regulators can detect the difference through patterns of behaviour, not office visits.
Bottom Line
Regulators can realistically police supervision without visiting most practices by using:
Risk‑based data analysis
Remote audits
Mandatory reporting
Digital evidence
Complaints intelligence
Targeted interviews
Physical inspections remain available but are no longer the primary tool. The Mazur judgment doesn’t require regulators to be everywhere - it requires them to be smarter about where they look.
A Moment of Reset for the Sector
CILEX has described the ruling as “a victory for access to justice” and an opportunity for the sector to reset and collaborate on consistent standards.
By restoring clarity, the Court has enabled firms to continue operating efficiently while maintaining high professional standards. But the responsibility now shifts to regulators - and to firms themselves, to ensure that supervision is meaningful, not nominal.
Conclusion
The Mazur appeal judgment reaffirms that unauthorised individuals can play a full and valuable role in litigation teams, provided they work under proper supervision. It restores long‑standing delegation practices and removes the existential threat posed by the High Court’s earlier interpretation.
However, it also ushers in a new era of regulatory scrutiny. The Court has handed regulators the task of defining and policing what “appropriate supervision” looks like in practice. Firms should expect updated guidance, closer monitoring and a renewed emphasis on demonstrable responsibility and oversight.
In short: delegation is back, but so is accountability.
Any thoughts?
Sources:
Comments