What Changed for Supervision After Mazur, in Practice

The Mazur judgment settled a legal question, but the practical question for most firms is simpler: does anything actually change in how supervision is run day to day.

What stays the same?

The authorised person still directs the work, still retains responsibility for it, and still needs proper direction, management and control in place, exactly as before Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2026] EWCA Civ 369 was decided, discussed fully in our Mazur decision article.

What has genuinely changed?

The scope of what can be safely delegated under that supervision is now clearer and less restrictive than the position the High Court had set out, removing the uncertainty firms were operating under in the intervening months, per the Law Society’s practice note.

What should a firm still be able to show?

Real, evidenced supervision, not a policy statement. Who is directing the work, and how the authorised person is checking and taking responsibility for it, covered in our article on documenting supervision for an SRA inspection.

What did the Court of Appeal actually decide in Mazur?

The Court of Appeal confirmed that an unauthorised person can carry out conduct-of-litigation tasks on behalf of an authorised individual, provided that individual retains genuine responsibility for direction, management and control of the work, as set out in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2026] EWCA Civ 369. That overturned a narrower reading the High Court had taken, which had left firms uncertain about how much of this kind of delegated work was genuinely safe.

For firms already running supervised outsourced arrangements properly, the judgment confirmed what good practice already looked like rather than requiring a change in approach.

What does “direction, management and control” actually require in practice?

Instructions that are genuinely given by the authorised individual, work that’s genuinely reviewed before it’s relied on, and a clear record of who directed what and when. It’s not enough for supervision to exist in theory; a firm needs to be able to show it operating day to day, the same standard covered in our day-to-day article.

Firms that already ran this discipline before Mazur have very little to change. Firms that treated supervision more loosely now have a clear judicial benchmark to measure against.

Does this change what the SRA expects firms to evidence?

The SRA Code of Conduct for Firms already required proper systems and controls around supervision; Mazur clarifies the legal boundary of what can be delegated under that supervision, rather than changing the underlying regulatory expectation. A firm that could already evidence real supervision meets both standards without any additional work.

What Mazur removes is the ambiguity about whether the delegation itself was legally sound in the first place, separate from whether it was well supervised.

What should a firm do differently, if anything, following the judgment?

Very little operationally, but it’s a good prompt to check that supervision evidence, instructions given, work reviewed, sign-off recorded, is actually being kept consistently rather than assumed. Our provider selection guide covers what a properly run outsourced arrangement should have in place regardless of how the case law develops.

Firms running an embedded outsourced team should treat this as confirmation that the structure they’re already using is sound, not as a signal to change how the work is directed.

Where can a firm get help reviewing its own supervision practice?

Talk it through on our contact page, particularly if an existing arrangement predates the judgment and hasn’t been reviewed against it directly. Our data processing agreement and engagement terms are drafted with this supervision standard built in from the outset.

Did the High Court’s earlier, narrower position cause real problems for firms?

It created genuine uncertainty for firms already running outsourced or delegated support arrangements, since the narrower reading raised questions about how much conduct-of-litigation work could safely sit with an unauthorised person even under close supervision. Many firms paused or scaled back delegation during that period out of caution rather than any change in how they were actually supervising the work.

The Court of Appeal’s decision resolved that uncertainty in favour of the position most properly run outsourced arrangements had been operating under all along.

Does this affect firms differently depending on practice area?

The principle applies across the board, but it’s most directly relevant wherever conduct-of-litigation tasks are common, civil litigation, employment tribunal work, and similar contentious practice areas. Firms in these areas should be most attentive to keeping clear supervision records, since this is where the boundary Mazur clarified is most likely to be tested.

Non-contentious practice areas, like private client work, were less affected by the underlying uncertainty in the first place, though the same supervision discipline still applies.

What does good supervision evidence actually look like on paper?

A written brief showing what was instructed, the returned work product, and a record that the authorised individual reviewed and took responsibility for it before it was relied on or sent onward. That’s not a heavy compliance burden; it’s largely a byproduct of running the briefing and review process properly in the first place, covered in our briefing article.

Firms that already brief and review work carefully have most of this evidence sitting in their existing case files without needing a separate compliance exercise.

Should firms update their engagement contracts in light of Mazur?

It’s worth checking that the contract’s supervision language reflects the confirmed position rather than the more cautious drafting some firms adopted during the period of uncertainty. Our Pricing page and engagement terms already reflect the Mazur position, and it’s a reasonable prompt to review any existing contract against the same standard.

This isn’t usually a significant rewrite, more a confirmation that existing language holds up against the now-settled legal position.

Does this change anything about who is liable if delegated work goes wrong?

No. Liability continues to sit with the authorised individual and the firm, exactly as before. Mazur clarified what can be delegated under supervision; it didn’t shift responsibility for the outcome away from the fee earner directing the work. Delegated tasks still sit under the instructing firm’s own professional indemnity cover, not any separate arrangement with the outsourced provider.

This is worth being clear about with clients too, even informally: the firm remains fully accountable for the matter regardless of how the underlying supporting work is resourced.

How does this interact with a firm’s own professional indemnity insurer?

Most insurers were already comfortable with properly supervised delegation before Mazur, since the underlying risk framework, direction, review, accountability, hasn’t changed. Firms with any lingering doubt should raise it directly with their insurer, but the judgment itself doesn’t introduce a new category of risk that wasn’t already being managed.

What’s the single most useful takeaway for a firm running or considering outsourced support?

Keep doing what good supervision already looked like: brief clearly, review properly, and keep a record of both. Mazur removed the legal uncertainty around delegation itself; it didn’t change what responsible supervision requires day to day, which is the standard our How It Works page has always been built around.

Is this decision likely to be appealed further or revisited?

As with any Court of Appeal decision, a further appeal to the Supreme Court remains theoretically possible, but firms shouldn’t wait on that possibility before organising their supervision practice. The current position is the settled law firms should be operating under now, and good supervision discipline holds up regardless of how any future appeal plays out.

Where should a firm start if it wants a second opinion on its own supervision practice?

A short review of a live matter’s file, checking whether instructions, review, and sign-off are actually documented as they happen, is the fastest way to see where a firm stands. Our contact page is a good place to talk through what that looks like for a specific engagement.

It’s a quick check that tends to confirm a firm is already doing the right thing, or points precisely at the one habit worth tightening up.

Either outcome is a useful thing to know before, rather than after, the next matter tests it.

Mazur, in the end, is reassurance for firms already doing this properly and a clear standard for anyone still working it out.

Either way, it’s worth knowing exactly where a firm’s own practice stands against it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the Mazur decision remove the need for supervision entirely?

No. It confirmed that proper supervision, not a blanket restriction, is what makes delegation lawful. Responsibility still sits with the authorised person.

Should firms update their written supervision policies after Mazur?

It is worth reviewing them against the Law Society’s practice note to ensure they reflect the current, less restrictive position accurately.

Does Mazur affect in-house paralegals as well as outsourced support?

Yes, the judgment applies to the delegation of litigation tasks generally, not to outsourced arrangements specifically.