Court of Appeal Clarifies Mazur Ruling After Law Society Challenge
Summary
The Court of Appeal made small amendments to its Mazur ruling on 22 April 2026 to clarify that law firms are not at risk of committing a criminal offence through inadequate supervision of unauthorised persons. The Law Society had sought a declaration that inadequate supervision could constitute the criminal offence of carrying on the conduct of litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007, but the Court disagreed with this analysis and confirmed supervision is a matter for regulators, not courts. The Law Society stated it will review and amend its practice note to ensure consistency with the clarified ruling.
About this source
The Inner Temple Library is one of the four Inns of Court library services in London. Their Current Awareness blog is staffed by professional law librarians who scan the day's English legal news, court judgments, regulatory updates, parliamentary questions, and academic commentary, and post short summaries with links to the source. Around 185 posts a month. The blog has been the standard daily-read for English barristers, solicitors, and law librarians for over a decade because of the editorial filtering: the librarians read more than any practitioner could, and they post only what matters. Watch this if you practice English law, manage a UK firm's research team, or want a curated daily feed of UK legal and regulatory news.
What changed
The Court of Appeal amended its Mazur judgment on 22 April 2026 to remove any ambiguity about the criminal consequences of inadequate supervision of unauthorised persons. The original ruling had been interpreted by the Law Society as meaning that firms or solicitors could commit the criminal offence of conducting litigation without adequate supervision. The Court confirmed it disagreed with this analysis and made small changes to the judgment to clarify that criminal liability requires more than inadequate supervision.
Legal professionals and law firms should note that supervision remains a regulatory matter for the SRA and other approved regulators, not a matter for criminal prosecution based solely on adequacy. The Law Society will need to amend its practice guidance to reflect this clarification. Firms should review their supervision arrangements against regulatory standards but need not fear criminal liability absent evidence of conduct outside the scope of authorisation.
Archived snapshot
Apr 24, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Exclusive: CA clarifies Mazur ruling after Law Society application
23 April 2026 Posted by Neil Rose
Miller: Law Society will have to change its guidance
The Court of Appeal has made amendments to its Mazur ruling to make clear that law firms are not at risk of committing a criminal offence through inadequate supervision of unauthorised persons.
We reported yesterday that the Law Society had decided not to appeal last month’s decision but we were wrong to declare that the drama was over.
It has now emerged that earlier this week it sought a declaration from the Court of Appeal on its description of how the decision should be interpreted.
This followed publication last week of the Law Society’s updated guidance on the conduct of litigation.
As explained today in an article for Legal Futures by Iain Miller, who represented CILEX pro bono in successfully bringing the appeal, the issue concerned the section of the guidance on the consequences of breach.
The Legal Services Act 2007 makes it a criminal offence to carry on the conduct of litigation by a person not entitled to do so or, even if authorised, through an employee or manager who is not.
The guidance quoted the comments of Lady Justice Andrew in Mazur, who said that if the litigation “is not being conducted by the unauthorised person for and on behalf of the authorised individual, they will be committing an offence”.
The guidance went on: “This means that the non-authorised individual themselves and/or their employer/firm may be liable where: there is no authorised individual involved at all in the tasks, these have not been appropriately delegated and supervised, or the non-authorised individual has acted outside the scope of their delegated authority.
“Breach could result in imprisonment or a fine, or both. This may also amount to contempt of court.”
According to Mr Miller, early this week the Law Society sought a declaration from the Court of Appeal which would affirm this interpretation of the judgment, “meaning that, in effect, a firm or solicitor could commit the criminal offence of carrying on the conduct of litigation by not having adequate supervision”.
He said he and many of the other parties disagreed and considered the Law Society’s guidance wrong in so far as it sought to conflate adequate supervision with the criminal offence.
Mr Miller continued: “Throughout the hearing, the Court of Appeal had been keen to avoid circumstances such as those the Law Society was now presenting as a consequence of the judgment, whereby satellite litigation may arise on the question of whether, for example, the supervision of a paralegal was ‘adequate’ with reference to regulatory rules and guidance.
“On 22 April, the Court of Appeal confirmed that it also disagreed with the analysis presented by the Law Society. It has now made small changes to the judgment to remove any ambiguity.”
The general editor of the textbook Cordery on Legal Services, Mr Miller pointed out that supervision was “classically a matter for the regulators, not the courts”, meaning it would be “odd” if the court intended that the effectiveness of supervision was determinative either in a criminal prosecution or a costs challenge.
“No doubt the Law Society will now need to amend its guidance,” he concluded.
A Law Society spokeswoman said: “The Law Society has received an amended judgment from the Court of Appeal and we will review our practice note to ensure it is consistent and provides as much clarity to the profession as possible.”
Sign up to our free e-newsletter
Leave a Comment
By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.
Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published. Name *
Email *
Comment *
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Blog
23 April 2026
The SRA needs to admit it got it wrong about SLAPPs
The High Court judgment in Ashley Hurst v SRA in January raises serious questions about the regulator’s approach to allegations of SLAPP-like behaviour.
Read More More Blogs 22 April 2026
Why menopause support belongs on every law firm’s agenda
Progression in the law slows significantly as women approach senior leadership. Most will be at the height of their careers around the average age menopause symptoms begin.
Read More More Blogs 20 April 2026
Law firms need to go beyond document checks
At the root of every failed compliance review is a familiar phrase: a calm assertion of “but we did a document check”.
Upcoming Webinars
- 24/04/2026 ### Children, wills and trusts: defining beneficiaries and managing risk
- 28/04/2026 ### Advising high net worth clients – estate planning in practice
28/04/2026
Avoiding and resolving neighbour disputes
Conferences
Claims Futures Conference 2026
Related News
Call to shift “modest” solicitor-client costs disputes from court to LeO
SRA unveils plan for beefed-up continuing competence regime
FCA and solicitors in war of words over motor finance challenge
“Aggressive” circuit judge interrupted barrister excessively
Leading national firm fined £160k for accounts rule breaches
Features
After Mazur, is bad supervision really a criminal offence?
- ### Flat roof developments: legal disputes and strategic representation
- ### Mazur – a problem 300 years in the making
Associate News
- ### LexisNexis and Luminance announce strategic alliance
- ### Clio Work is now available to all solo, small, and mid-sized law firms
- ### Personal injury damage calculations and the static myth: The impact of economic influences on future losses
- ### Would you buy legal advice from someone who has never practised law?
- ### Are you one of the 48%? When housing disrepair becomes a compensation case
- ### 35% of managers lack confidence on neurodiversity adjustments as tribunal cases hit five-year high
- ### Is legal AI becoming ‘mandatory’ in criminal law? More Stories ## Associates
#### LexisNexis®InterAction® #### OneAdvanced #### Qanooni #### Auto Claims Assist #### LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions #### Access Legal #### Express Solicitors #### CEL Solicitors #### Lockton Companies LLP #### OneSearch Direct #### Allianz Legal Protection #### Acquira Professional Services #### tmGroup #### Dye & Durham #### Litera #### National Accident Law #### Document Direct #### SOS Legal #### AxiaFunder #### BigHand #### Nexa Law #### O'Connors #### Clio #### Stridon #### Fraser and Fraser #### ARAG #### SearchFlow #### iCOFA #### DR Solicitors #### R&R Solutions #### Temple Legal Protection #### Osprey Approach #### Recovery First Limited #### Legal intelligence from LexisNexis® #### Valid8 IP #### DG Legal #### Financial & Legal #### Linetime #### Miller Insurance Services LLP #### Legmark #### VinciWorks #### Bundledocs #### National Accident Helpline #### Brabners #### National Claims #### Perfect Portal #### Ignite Specialty Risk #### LEAP Legal Software #### Actionstep #### LPG #### InfoTrack #### Internet Erasure Ltd #### Checkboard #### Search Acumen #### Landmark Information Group #### Verisk #### Conscious Solutions #### Fenchurch Legal
Sign-up for our e‑newsletter
Get our news roundup every Friday.
Email * Sign-up here Services Directory Advertise Become an Associate
Related changes
Get daily alerts for Inner Temple Library Current Awareness
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from Legal Futures.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Inner Temple Library Current Awareness publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.