SRA’s New Supervision Guidance Following Mazur

A renewed focus on supervision

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur has provided welcome clarity for law firms that rely on paralegals, trainees and other unauthorised staff to deliver legal services. In response, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has issued updated guidance on effective supervision, setting out its expectations of firms and authorised individuals who delegate legal work.

For insurers and insured law firms, the guidance is significant – not because it radically changes the regulatory landscape, but because it reinforces where responsibility lies when work is delegated. In essence, the message is that delegation is permissible but accountability remains with the authorised lawyer and the firm.

What did the Court decide in Mazur?

As a brief recap, the Court of Appeal confirmed that an unauthorised individual, such as a paralegal, trainee solicitor or legal executive, may lawfully carry out tasks that fall within the conduct of litigation when acting on behalf of an appropriately authorised individual. However, the authorised person remains responsible for the work and must exercise proper “direction, management, supervision and control”

Please find our article for more detail here: Mazur Reversed: Court of Appeal Creates a Responsibility-Based Approach to Litigation | Beale & Co

The SRA’s response

Following the judgment, the SRA issued updated guidance on effective supervision (this can be found here: SRA | Effective supervision | Solicitors Regulation Authority). The guidance expressly recognises that there is no single model of supervision suitable for every practice. Instead, firms are expected to adopt a risk-based approach, taking into account factors such as the complexity of the work, the experience of the individual undertaking it, client vulnerability and the potential consequences of error.

The SRA also emphasises that supervision must be more than a paper exercise. Simply assigning a supervisor or documenting a reporting line will not, of itself, satisfy regulatory obligations. Supervisors must have sufficient oversight of the work being carried out and be readily available to provide support and guidance where required.

Why this matters for firms

The guidance creates a useful benchmark against which firms should assess their procedures.

Areas that merit particular consideration include:

• delegation frameworks and authorities;
• supervisor-to-fee-earner ratios;
• file review processes;
• escalation procedures for complex or unusual issues;
• supervision arrangements in remote or hybrid working environments; and
• documentation demonstrating supervisory oversight.

The guidance also highlights the need for supervisors to have sufficient expertise and capacity to undertake their role effectively. A highly experienced lawyer who is responsible for too many files or supervisees may nevertheless struggle to demonstrate adequate oversight if issues later arise.

Risk management and professional indemnity implications

Many professional negligence claims have their origins not in complex questions of law but in failures of oversight, inadequate file management, missed deadlines and failures to identify emerging issues at an early stage.

The SRA’s guidance reinforces the importance of proactive supervision as a means of reducing both regulatory and negligence exposure. Effective supervision can assist firms in identifying errors before they become losses, ensuring consistency of advice and supporting junior staff development.

Where claims do arise, a firm’s ability to demonstrate that it had considered supervisory risk, implemented appropriate controls and maintained evidence of oversight may become an important factor in both regulatory investigations and insurers’ assessment of the circumstances giving rise to a claim.

Practical next steps for firms

Law firms should consider undertaking a review of their supervision arrangements in light of the Mazur decision and the updated guidance. In particular, firms should ensure that:

1. Delegated responsibilities are clearly defined.
2. Supervisors understand the extent of their accountability.
3. File review processes are proportionate to risk.
4. Escalation routes are clear and understood.
5. Supervision decisions and rationales are appropriately documented.
6. Supervisors have sufficient time and expertise to perform their role effectively.

Conclusion

The Mazur decision provides certainty that litigation work can continue to be delivered through mixed teams of authorised and unauthorised staff. However, the Court of Appeal and the SRA have delivered an equally clear message: delegation does not transfer responsibility. The authorised lawyer remains accountable and must be able to demonstrate genuine direction, management, supervision and control.

Now is an appropriate time for law firms to review supervision frameworks and ensure that they reflect the realities of modern practice. For insurers, the guidance offers a valuable lens through which to assess operational risk and the effectiveness of firms’ governance arrangements.

As a specialist insurance law firm, Beale & Co works closely with law firms and insurers to strengthen governance frameworks, manage regulatory risk and respond to professional indemnity exposures. If you would like to discuss the practical implications for your business, please contact Dilara Devin, Claire Revell or your usual Beale & Co contact.