The Solicitors Regulation Authority has published updated supervision guidance following the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Mazur, establishing a risk-based compliance framework that every SRA-regulated firm must now apply when delegating work to legal executives, paralegals, trainee solicitors and AI systems.
The Court of Appeal held in March 2026 that unauthorised persons may lawfully perform tasks within the conduct of litigation provided the authorised individual exercises proper direction, management, supervision and control throughout. The SRA’s 24-page guidance, updated on 12 June 2026 and developed in consultation with the Law Society, CILEX Regulation, the Legal Aid Agency and the Law Centres Network, translates that legal principle into practical compliance requirements firms must now demonstrate they have implemented.
The guidance is explicit that putting supervision arrangements in place is necessary but not sufficient. Firms must take proactive steps to ensure supervisory arrangements are understood by all parties and that supervisors are personally accountable for how those arrangements function in practice. The SRA states that no single model of supervision is mandated — firms must apply a risk-based approach calibrated to the nature of the work, the experience of those carrying it out, and the specific risks to clients if legal services prove defective. Firms must also be able to evidence the arrangements they have chosen and the risk-based reasons for their approach.
The consequences of failing this standard are illustrated by two case studies included in the guidance. A conveyancing firm was referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and fined £15,000 after paralegals used an outdated template for five years without meaningful partner oversight. A claims management firm received a £30,000 SDT fine after a part-time supervisor with criminal litigation experience oversaw a twelve-person claims team without adequate direction or file review. Both cases demonstrate that the SRA will pursue enforcement action for supervision failures even where direct client harm is not the primary concern.
The guidance also addresses claims management work specifically, noting that firms without Financial Conduct Authority authorisation must ensure a regulated legal practitioner both supervises and directs claims handling work carried out by unauthorised persons. Failure to meet this requirement contravenes the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000’s general prohibition — a criminal offence under FSMA.
In a development of particular significance for firms deploying technology, the guidance addresses AI supervision directly. The SRA states that when using AI tools in delivery of legal services, regulated firms must ensure outputs produced with AI assistance are subject to appropriate human review, scrutiny and professional judgement, with an authorised individual retaining ultimate responsibility for any legal services delivered with AI assistance.
For compliance officers and practice managers across the profession, the guidance now provides the framework against which SRA investigations will assess supervision adequacy. Firms that have not reviewed their delegation structures since the Mazur ruling should treat today’s publication as the starting point for that exercise — and should note that the SRA’s enforcement strategy makes clear that serious supervision failures will attract regulatory action regardless of whether client harm has resulted.