Law Society Confirms No Appeal in Mazur Case
Summary
The Law Society has confirmed it will not appeal the Court of Appeal's March 2026 ruling in Mazur, which overturned an earlier High Court decision and confirmed that non-authorised fee-earners can conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised lawyer. Vice-president Brett Dixon stated that appealing was 'not in the interests of our members'. Attention now turns to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for updated supervision guidance, while the Legal Services Board continues its review into how regulators ensured litigation information was accurate.
“Having considered the judgment carefully, the Law Society will not be appealing the judgment, as it is not in the interests of our members to do so.”
Law firms using non-authorised fee-earners to conduct litigation should review their supervision arrangements now that the Mazur ruling is final. The SRA is expected to issue updated supervision guidance, and firms may wish to assess whether current oversight meets the 'effective supervision' standard the regulator will likely articulate. The LSB's parallel review may also address accountability structures for supervision failures.
About this source
GovPing monitors Inner Temple Library Current Awareness for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 185 changes logged to date.
What changed
The Law Society's decision not to appeal the Court of Appeal's Mazur ruling brings finality to a case that had raised significant concerns within the legal profession about the conduct of litigation by non-authorised fee-earners. The Court of Appeal rejected the Law Society's interpretation of the Legal Services Act 2007 requirements. The ruling confirms that non-authorised fee-earners may conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised lawyer.
Law firms and legal professionals should monitor for updated SRA guidance on effective supervision, which the regulator indicated it is developing in light of the Mazur judgment. The Legal Services Board's ongoing review into the accuracy of information provided to lawyers about conducting litigation may also produce recommendations affecting regulatory practices.
Archived snapshot
Apr 23, 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.
The drama is over – no Mazur appeal
22 April 2026 Posted by Neil Rose
Dixon: Not in members’ interests to appeal
The Law Society has decided against trying to appeal last month’s Court of Appeal ruling in Mazur, it has confirmed to Legal Futures.
Attention will now turn to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for its updated guidance in light of the judgment, which overturned Mr Justice Sheldon’s decision from last September and confirmed that non-authorised fee-earners can conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised lawyer.
The appeal judges rejected the Law Society’s interpretation of the Legal Services Act requirements but vice-president Brett Dixon said yesterday: “Having considered the judgment carefully, the Law Society will not be appealing the judgment, as it is not in the interests of our members to do so.”
The society’s own revised Mazur practice note, published last week, said the regulator was updating its guidance on effective supervision.
In an article on Legal Futures this week, Miller Insurance highlighted that “having adequate and meaningful supervision in place is not just a regulatory point, but crucial to both professional indemnity insurers and operational resilience”.
The finality of the case should also allow the Legal Services Board to complete the review it began last October into how regulators and representative bodies ensured that information on conducting litigation was accurate and reliable.
An interim report in January said some of the information provided to lawyers over the years was not clear enough, but at that stage it did not point fingers or announce any action.
Authorisation and supervision issues may continue, however, after the spotlight that Mazur threw on them. We reported earlier this month on a county court decision that the use of unqualified advocates by agencies has “the potential to undermine the integrity of the legal system”.
“To allow unqualifed persons to routinely represent parties in court if they cannot properly be said to be supervised and are not accountable to any regulated professional body is an unsafe practice and is not permitted by the Legal Services Act 2007,” said Deputy District Judge McKay in Cardiff.
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
Exclusive: CA clarifies Mazur ruling after Law Society application
SRA “should ask KC” to review approach to SLAPPs
Motor finance law firm to launch JR of lifetime smoking ban
Reviewer urges better understanding of SQE format
Legal Services Board reverses plan to reduce budget
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
- ### 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?
- ### Global findings on AI adoption, governance and business performance
- ### Client onboarding in law firms: Bridging the gap between process and reality
- ### Litera brings trusted AI-powered document comparison to Google Workspace
- ### Qanooni AI and Docusign to connect legal AI with intelligent agreement management More Stories ## Associates
#### DG Legal #### Dye & Durham #### Verisk #### National Claims #### iCOFA #### Acquira Professional Services #### Linetime #### OneAdvanced #### Stridon #### Legmark #### Miller Insurance Services LLP #### LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions #### Lockton Companies LLP #### CEL Solicitors #### Perfect Portal #### Express Solicitors #### Financial & Legal #### Legal intelligence from LexisNexis® #### Valid8 IP #### Allianz Legal Protection #### Ignite Specialty Risk #### LexisNexis®InterAction® #### Bundledocs #### Internet Erasure Ltd #### Landmark Information Group #### National Accident Helpline #### Litera #### Fenchurch Legal #### O'Connors #### Fraser and Fraser #### VinciWorks #### Brabners #### BigHand #### Osprey Approach #### OneSearch Direct #### DR Solicitors #### InfoTrack #### Document Direct #### Search Acumen #### Recovery First Limited #### Nexa Law #### tmGroup #### Access Legal #### ARAG #### SearchFlow #### R&R Solutions #### Conscious Solutions #### Actionstep #### Qanooni #### SOS Legal #### National Accident Law #### Temple Legal Protection #### Auto Claims Assist #### Checkboard #### AxiaFunder #### LPG #### LEAP Legal Software #### Clio
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.