Reserved Legal Services: Mazur & Stuart Case Sparks Industry Wide Compliance Review
Assess risk exposures, refine roles, and implement robust internal monitoring and controls
There have been numerous summaries and updates following the decision resulting from the Appeal of Mazur & Stuart v. Charles Russell Speechleys LLP, triggering a wave of concern across the legal sector. Consequently, firms are now urgently reassessing their use of non-authorised staff in reserved legal activities. The Regulation and Compliance Office has provided several guidance notes since the ruling, and below we provide an overview of each of these practical notes.
Conduct vs Support: Clarifying Roles
While firms await clarification from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), it is highly recommended that they undertake a review to understand the critical distinction between “conducting” and “supporting” litigation. The ruling confirms that non-authorised staff may assist but not lead on reserved activities. Firms must now define which tasks fall under each category and restructure workflows accordingly to avoid breaching regulations. A helpful guide, including a table of conduct vs support, can be found here: Reserved Legal Services – Understanding Conduct vs Support.
Should Firms Self-Report?
In light of the ruling, many firms are questioning whether they should self-report breaches to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). Current recommendation suggests holding off until the SRA issues formal direction and guidance to the industry on its expectations, which should follow once it has completed its internal investigation. Firms are advised to internally investigate, document any breaches, and log them in their COLP breach register. The focus must not only be on investigating the scale of any issue the firm faces but also implementing a strategy to prevent further breaches from occurring.
CILEx Clarification: Property and Probate Exempt
In a welcome clarification, CILEx has confirmed that the Mazur ruling does not affect members working in conveyancing and probate. Under Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act, exemptions allow CILEx members to conduct these reserved activities under supervision.
However, litigation remains excluded from this exemption, and firms must ensure only authorised individuals handle such matters. It is hoped that a similar approach by the SRA will be confirmed shortly, and at least one of the worries can be put to one side as firms continue to focus on the changes to their processes, focusing on the affected area of litigation.
Minimising Risk and Protecting Your Firm
We appreciate the seriousness of the issues raised by this case and the implications it has for staffing, supervision, cost recovery, regulatory compliance, and risk of negligence claims.
Firms are urged to act swiftly to assess risk exposures, refine roles, and implement robust internal monitoring and controls.
If you would like to speak with us regarding your compliance strategy or understanding the impact of this ruling, our specialist brokers are available to assist.
Client Academies
PIB will be hosting free-to-attend Client Academies designed to support law firms in navigating key areas of compliance, risk, and regulation. These sessions offer practical advice to help mitigate risk and protect your business.
Our next legal seminars, taking place in November, will cover:
- SRA AML enforcement and rising sanctions
- Cyber threats and how to defend against them
- Regulatory hot topics, including supervision
We will provide refreshments and give you the opportunity to network with our experts to discuss any specific issues that may be on your own particular agenda. To register, please contact Jay.Bajaj@pib-insurance.com.