After Mazur, Is Bad Supervision Really a Criminal Offence?

Why It Matters

The ruling removes the threat of criminal prosecution for firms delegating litigation work, stabilising cost recovery and aligning supervisory duties with regulator expectations rather than court‑imposed criminal standards.

Key Takeaways

• Court of Appeal says supervised non‑authorised staff can handle litigation tasks
• Criminal liability only if work isn’t truly on behalf of a solicitor
• Law Society’s guidance linking supervision to criminal offence was rejected
• Firms must keep proper supervision; it's a regulatory, not criminal, matter
• Costs challenges now limited to delegations that are merely a sham

Pulse Analysis

The Mazur saga began when the High Court concluded that non‑authorised persons could only "assist" in litigation, leaving firms exposed to a potential criminal offence under the Legal Services Act 2007. That interpretation sparked a wave of uncertainty across the legal sector, as firms feared that any delegation beyond a narrow assist role could trigger prosecution and render litigation costs unrecoverable. The controversy highlighted a gap in the statute, which unlike other reserved activities, did not expressly permit supervised conduct of litigation.

The Court of Appeal’s decision on 22 April resolved the impasse by adopting an agency‑type analysis: a non‑authorised individual may lawfully perform any litigation task provided they act "for and on behalf of" an authorised solicitor who retains responsibility. This simple test replaces the High Court’s complex "assist" framework and confines criminal liability to cases where the delegation is a façade. By amending key paragraphs of the judgment, the court eliminated the ambiguity that the Law Society’s guidance had tried to fill, confirming that supervision remains a regulatory matter, not a criminal one. Consequently, cost‑recovery challenges tied to alleged criminal conduct are now confined to clear‑cut sham arrangements.

For law firms, the ruling translates into a clearer risk landscape. While firms must still maintain robust supervision in line with Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) expectations, they can be confident that proper delegation does not expose them to imprisonment or fines. The decision also signals that the Law Society will likely revise its guidance to reflect the court’s test, prompting firms to review internal delegation policies and ensure documented authority chains. In practice, firms should audit delegation logs, confirm that authorised solicitors retain formal responsibility, and stay attuned to forthcoming SRA supervisory standards, thereby safeguarding both compliance and cost recovery in future litigation.