On April 1, 2026, the Court of Appeal delivered a decision that sent ripples across the UK legal sector, upholding the Mazur appeal and restoring a long-standing practice at the heart of legal service delivery: the supervised delegation of litigation tasks to non-authorised staff. For many, this ruling was a sigh of relief after months of anxiety and uncertainty that had gripped solicitors, legal executives, paralegals, and law firms alike.
The case, which had become one of the most talked-about legal profession stories in recent memory, revolved around whether unauthorised individuals—such as paralegals and legal executives—could lawfully perform litigation tasks under the supervision of authorised lawyers. The original judgment had thrown the sector into turmoil, casting doubt on working models that had developed over decades and threatening the stability of thousands of legal careers. But with the Court of Appeal’s decision, the principle of delegation was reaffirmed, provided that there is proper direction, management, supervision, and control tailored to the circumstances.
Lord Justice Birss, delivering the lead judgment, clarified the core issue: "An unauthorised person may lawfully perform any tasks, which are within the scope of the conduct of litigation, for and on behalf of an authorised individual such as a solicitor or appropriately authorised CILEX member, provided the authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person." In other words, the buck still stops with the authorised lawyer, even as experienced non-authorised staff carry out delegated tasks.
Reactions from across the legal spectrum were swift and, for the most part, positive. Jennifer Coupland, chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX), described the ruling as a "common-sense judgment" and "the most consequential for legal services in recent history." According to Coupland, the decision is not only a victory for CILEX members, but also for access to justice, consumer interests, and the encouragement of a thriving, diverse, and competitive legal sector. She added, "CILEX is delighted that this common-sense judgment recognises our solutions, bringing much needed clarity to the conduct of litigation, and the role of authorised and unauthorised professionals."
CILEX, which was represented pro bono by a team including Nick Bacon KC and Iain Miller of Kingsley Napley, has signaled an intention to lobby the government to address what it sees as regulatory shortcomings in the Legal Services Act. Coupland emphasized that many CILEX professionals—often from groups traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession—had been profoundly impacted by the uncertainty. "We hope that they are now able to move forward with their careers," she said, expressing a desire for this judgment to serve as a "moment of reset" for the sector, fostering collaboration to ensure a consistent and clear response that supports ordinary people seeking justice.
The Law Society, which had argued for the dismissal of the appeal, also acknowledged the judgment’s importance. Vice-president Brett Dixon said, "Whilst the court did not accept all of the Law Society’s points, its judgment provides an outline framework for those involved in litigation to use in assessing whether supervision is adequate and lawful." The Society plans to update its guidance and practice notes to align with the ruling, underscoring the continuing importance of supervision in legal practice.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which found itself in the unusual position of welcoming a judgment it had initially opposed, recognized the "concern and confusion among practitioners and firms after the original judgment." The SRA committed to reviewing and updating its guidance as soon as possible, working closely with other regulators to ensure consistency and clarity for all involved. According to the SRA, "The clarity the judgment provides will enable us to review our guidance and update it where necessary. We will do this as soon as possible."
Other organizations, such as the Association of Costs Lawyers and the Law Centres Network, echoed these sentiments. David Bailey-Vella, chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers, remarked, "This decision should calm the legal market. It also stresses the responsibility of authorised persons—such as costs lawyers—to supervise the conduct of litigation. We welcome that responsibility and believe we have a key role to play in ensuring law firms’ compliance." The Law Centres Network noted that the ruling gave "welcome confirmation that the way law centres work—bringing together solicitors and highly skilled caseworkers within a robust supervisory framework—is lawful."
Not everyone, however, was entirely satisfied. Julia Mazur and Jerome Stuart, the original claimants, along with Blind Justice UK, issued a joint statement highlighting unresolved issues. "This case has never been about technicalities. It is about transparency, accountability, and who is really acting for the client. At its core, it is about whether clients truly know who is acting for them, and on what basis." They warned that the judgment did not clearly define what delegation means in practice, the required level of supervision, or where the boundaries lie—potentially paving the way for more satellite litigation. They also raised concerns about how the decision aligns with section 25 of the Solicitors Act 1974, which restricts the recovery of costs for work done by unqualified persons acting as solicitors.
In response, Blind Justice UK announced a national public panel series, to be held at universities across the UK, aiming to address these lingering questions: Who is doing the work on your case? What qualifications do they hold? Who is accountable when things go wrong? These are not trivial concerns, especially for clients navigating a complex legal system.
Legal regulation specialist Paul Bennett, who acted for the defendant before Mr Justice Sheldon, called the decision a correction of a "clear and obvious error by the High Court." He asserted, "The judgment underscores the importance of clear supervision structures and transparent regulatory responsibilities, while also recognising the role that properly overseen staff can play in supporting access to justice. It has been this way for centuries, and the Court of Appeal has delivered the only credible outcome."
From the perspective of law firms and their staff, the relief was palpable. Paul Reason, managing director of R Costings, summed up the mood: "Common sense has prevailed, and people throughout our industry can today breathe a sigh of relief. This is a major victory for law firms and staff across all levels of practice, who have been forced to live through months of disarray and faced huge uncertainty over their firm’s costs and financial positions. There is no doubt that careers, invaluable expertise, and indeed entire law firms, have been saved by this decision."
Nick McDonnell, director and costs lawyer at Kain Knight, praised the court for rejecting a "rigid distinction between ‘assisting’ and ‘conducting’ litigation." He described the outcome as "pragmatic and welcome," adding, "It avoids the risk of criminalising routine legal work, supports access to justice, and preserves the ability of firms to deploy skilled teams effectively. At the same time, it maintains appropriate safeguards by emphasising supervision, accountability, and professional standards."
As the legal sector absorbs the implications of the Mazur ruling, the consensus is clear: the judgment restores stability and clarity, but also places a renewed emphasis on robust supervision and transparency. The challenge now is for regulators, firms, and professionals to update their practices and guidance in line with the new legal reality—ensuring that the balance between efficiency, accountability, and access to justice is maintained for all.