The SRA updated its guidance on the implications of the Mazur judgment on the conduct of litigation on 11/12/25.
The main changes to the guidance, which was originally published on 20/10/25, is the content in the section entitled “Supporting firms and solicitors and our approach to enforcement” (which previously simply referred to the SRA Ethics helpline), in which it seeks to clarify its stance on firms self-reporting for previous breaches looked at through the lens of Mazur and enforcement action going forwards.
Whilst CILEx Regulation has said its members do not need to self-report, the SRA appears to have taken the opposite stance in this latest iteration of their guidance, although it is not entirely clear! The new section states:
If you conclude that you have been operating incorrectly in the past, you can make a self-report to us (by email or telephone). While each case turns on its own facts, we will treat sympathetically self-reported incidences of genuine error based on mistaken interpretation of the law, prior to us publishing this page on 20 October 2025.
Note the word “can”. Whilst it doesn’t say you must, because ultimately the obligation to report to the SRA is based on there being a “serious breach” of the SRA’s regulatory arrangements (which is a matter for each firm/ solicitor to decide) it does rather feel now that they are expecting self-reports, particularly where the conclusion is that a serious breach has been committed, even if steps have been taken to remedy the situation since the Mazur judgment. Given conducting litigation without being authorised to do so amounts to an offence under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA), it may be difficult to conclude that it is not a “serious breach”. However, it will depend on the facts of each case and firms’ experiences.
The guidance goes on to say:
If you are conducting a reserved activity without authorisation and have not addressed the implications of the judgment and our guidance, you can expect us to use appropriate investigative and enforcement powers to identify and address this misconduct.
The message from this is clear: If you haven’t already changed your processes to ensure compliance with the LSA and Mazur ruling, the SRA will be coming after you! If you haven’t done so already, do ensure you have reviewed your litigation practices, including who does what, how work is supervised, approved and signed off by authorised staff, and ensure that any non-authorised staff do not have ultimate responsibility for the “conduct of litigation” and that everyone fully understands the boundaries of their roles. Your processes should be fully documented for clarity, with any changes brought to the attention of your staff with training provided as necessary, and client files should clearly show who has done what. Most importantly, if you conclude that your non-authorised staff were in fact conducting litigation, as opposed to merely assisting with it, a self-report is likely to be sensible sooner rather than later. The Law Society’s practice note (most recently updated on 18/11/25) and supporting guidance (including the recently published, 10 considerations when conducting litigation after Mazur) are still probably the most helpful resources to consider when conducting this review.
Whilst CILEX has been given permission to challenge Mazur ruling in the Court of Appeal, and the hearing has been listed for the end of February 2026, it is likely that it will still be some time before we see the outcome of that, as judgment is likely to be reserved. The message appears to be that firms cannot await the outcome of the appeal, in the hope it will undo the nightmare of the last few months and everything will go back to ‘normal’ (which is possible/ highly unlikely depending on whose views you read on LinkedIn!), and need to proceed on the basis of the current position, namely that only those authorised to conduct litigation can do so, even when working in an authorised firm. Non-authorised staff can conduct pre-action work and can assist in the conduct of litigation but must not be the ones carrying out that work, even if under supervision of an authorised person (qualified solicitor, legal executive with practising rights etc). Whilst the definition of the conduct of litigation is narrow and limited to formal steps in proceedings (e.g. issuing, filing and serving of applications and statements of case), it is not as simple as looking at a list (as there isn’t one!) and being confident that the activity falls within the definition or otherwise, and there is no definition of “assisting in the conduct of litigation”. The main consideration is who has assumed responsibility for the conduct of litigation and exercises professional judgement in respect of it.
Having discussed the SRA’s latest statement as a team, our view, taking a risk averse approach, is that the safest course of action, where firms have concluded that they were in breach of the LSA, is to self-report, explaining what happened and (if relevant) that it was not believed to be a breach at the time, together with any other relevant mitigating factors, such as there having been no impact on clients etc, and trust that the SRA stand by their statement that they will treat such reports sympathetically. If you conclude that you do not need to report, it will be important to keep clear notes of your reasoning in case this is challenged at a later date. Firms may also wish to discuss the position with your professional indemnity insurers in the first instance.
Please reach out to your consultant if you wish to discuss this issue further.