The SRA’s updated Effective supervision – Guidance was finally published on 12th June 2026.
This follows the Court of Appeal’s much-heralded ‘conduct of litigation’ judgment in the Mazur case in March (see some of our previous thoughts here). By way of a reminder, the Court of Appeal concluded that it is lawful for an unauthorised person to carry out work amounting to the ‘conduct of litigation’ under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA) as long as they are doing so ‘for and on behalf of an authorised individual’ under their genuine and effective supervision, including providing ‘proper direction, management, supervision and control’. The Court however, left the detail of what effective supervision looks like to legal regulators, such as the SRA. The much-anticipated guidance from the SRA has now landed!
The Law Society updated its practice note on ‘Mazur and the conduct of litigation’ in April. It has taken the SRA longer to produce its updated guidance due to it working with other representative bodies, including the Law Society and CILEX Regulation, as well as government departments, the Legal Aid Agency and the Law Centres Network to ensure a joined-up approach.
The SRA’s guidance has been significantly expanded (from 9 pages to 24😱) to deal with the impact of the Court of Appeal’s decision on supervision arrangements for non-authorised staff (i.e. non-solicitors or non-authorised barristers/ legal executives), including a complete re-write of the section specifically addressing the ‘conduct of litigation’, as well as taking the opportunity to update its thoughts on supervision more generally.
SRA Guidance – key points/ changes
Whilst there is no substitution for reading the guidance itself in full (and we very much encourage this), here are the main points we have picked out:
- It does not create any new standards or requirements beyond those in legislation or the SRA’s current standards and regulations.
- It summarises the Court of Appeal’s conclusions in relation to the conduct of litigation and supervision (but, slightly oddly, doesn’t mention the Mazur case by name), emphasising that the supervising authorised person retains all responsibilities in relation to the tasks performed by the unauthorised person and the professional principles flowing therefrom.
- The key themes remain the same (but have been expanded):
- The need for supervision – to comply with SRA standards and regulations and the LSA
- Appropriate supervision arrangements – these remain risk-based with the acknowledgement that there is no single model of supervision. The idea being that the intensity of supervision will depend on the complexity of the legal matter, the likely impact on clients if things go wrong, and the experience of the person carrying out the work.
- Conducting supervision – a supervisor needs sufficient contact with the supervisee and must see enough work to identify patterns of risk, as well as having effective knowledge of the matters being worked on.
- Ensuring supervision is effective – including proactive steps so that supervision arrangements are clear and understood.
- Who can supervise? Supervisors do not have to be partners or those with line management responsibilities, but who should be a supervisor should be decided taking a risk-based approach, taking into account the proposed supervisor’s expertise, skills, availability and ‘whether they are able, in practice, to exercise proper direction, management, supervision and control over the work being delegated with confidence’.
- Appropriate supervision arrangements
- Supervisors should establish when and how they will check the supervisee’s work – not necessarily just at the ‘final product’ stage, always remembering that when dealing with reserved legal activities (including the conduct of litigation), it is the authorised person who remains responsible for the work.
- There are various good practice suggestions, including ensuring clarity about tasks being delegated, including to whom, and the expectations from both the supervisor and the supervisee, including the scope and limits of delegated authority, and including supervision discussions in performance reviews.
- Do you have a speak-up culture? Whilst not new to the guidance, it is worth mentioning the (highly topical) reference to the importance of firm culture enabling staff to raise concerns and be supported if they are experiencing problems.
- Document everything! Firms are expected to record their rationale when designing supervision systems and delegation arrangements, as well as supervisors/ supervisees being expected to keep records of supervision in action.
- ‘Conduct of litigation’ section: This provides helpful guidance as to how and when tasks can be delegated to unauthorised people (commenting that the suggestions in this section can be applied to any supervision situation), and how to demonstrate the required supervision, including having proportionate audit and quality assurance measures to promptly address any issues or breaches identified.
- What amounts to ‘conduct of litigation’? An annex has been added to tackle this tricky issue, given the lack of a definitive list, and the rather vague definition in the LSA (issuing proceedings before any court in England & Wales; the commencement, prosecution and defence of such proceedings; and the performance of any ancillary functions in relation to such proceedings). The annex references the need for ‘professional judgement’, the fact that it will not include purely clerical or mechanical activities, and the list of issues the Court of Appeal grouped together as being unlikely to fall within the definition, namely:
- Pre-litigation work
- Giving legal advice in connection with court proceedings
- Conducting correspondence with the opposing party on behalf of clients
- Gathering evidence
- Instructing and liaising with experts and counsel
- Signing a statement of truth in respect of a statement of case
- Signing any other document that the CPR permits to be signed by a legal representative, as defined by CPR Part 2.3.
- When is a criminal offence committed? Interestingly, the guidance makes no direct reference to this (pursuant to section 14 LSA, namely, when a non-authorised person conducts litigation or does so under the supervision of a non-authorised person) other than to include a section on the possible defence to such criminal proceedings, nor the Court of Appeal’s clarification that having an ineffective system of supervision in place will be a matter for regulators rather than the criminal courts. However, the Enforcement section now covers what the SRA will do if they discover that an unauthorised person is in fact taking responsibility for tasks that amount to the conduct of litigation (perhaps with an authorised person allocated to the matter in name only). The Law Society guidance is the place to turn for more detail about the criminal side of things.
- Case studies: The original 2 case studies have now been joined by a further 4, mainly focussing on High Volume work (including looking at the ratios of supervisors to supervisees and the benefit of having clear systems and controls in place overseen by a solicitor), but also looking at the thorny issue of significantly experienced, but non-authorised staff, (such as legal executives without practising rights) having to be supervised by far more junior, but authorised, solicitors. Sadly, the guidance isn’t particularly enlightening as to how to deal with this senior/ junior situation, concluding simply that “this situation can be managed” 🤔
- Additional sections: Specific sections have been added to address supervisors not authorised by the SRA and supervision of Artificial Intelligence-assisted work.
What was already there?
For those of you who haven’t read the SRA’s supervision guidance in a while, don’t forget it already included some helpful sections, including those addressing:
- What checks supervision should involve
- Face to face supervision and how to deal with remote, hybrid and agile working
- Supervising work outside an employment relationship
- Supervising trainees
- Claims management activities, Immigration and Legal aid work
What does it all mean?
Effective supervision is a balance of professional judgement and robust systems. By clearly defining delegation, maintaining active oversight, and recording your supervisory rationale, you can ensure your firm remains compliant with the post-Mazur landscape and the SRA’s updated expectations, as well as your obligation to act in the best interests of your clients. Time to review your supervision arrangements!