Professional indemnity explained

Mazur after the Court of Appeal: supervised litigation and PI

Reviewed by the Apex broking team · Last reviewed 2026-10-31

Supervised litigation is the conduct of court proceedings by unauthorised staff acting for an authorised individual who directs and controls the work. Mazur confirmed it is lawful, shifting attention to supervision quality and PI.

Part of: Professional indemnity insurance

In short

In Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2026] EWCA Civ 369, decided on 31 March 2026, the Court of Appeal overturned the September 2025 High Court view. Unauthorised staff can lawfully perform litigation tasks for an authorised individual who has appropriate supervision and delegation arrangements and remains responsible. The SRA and CILEx Regulation have since issued updated supervision guidance. For PI, the focus moves to supervision quality: negligence by junior staff is still a claim against the firm, proposal forms ask about supervision, and changes made after 2025 should be disclosed.

What the Court of Appeal decided

On 31 March 2026 the Court of Appeal held that an unauthorised person can lawfully carry out tasks that amount to the conduct of litigation, provided they act for and on behalf of an authorised individual who has put appropriate supervision and delegation arrangements in place. The unauthorised person is not carrying on the conduct of litigation and does not commit an offence. The authorised individual is the person carrying on the litigation and remains responsible for the delegated work.

The case is Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2026] EWCA Civ 369. The court was the Master of the Rolls, the Chancellor of the High Court and Andrews LJ. The appeal was brought by CILEX, supported by APIL and the Law Centres Network. The judiciary media summary and the judgment page set out the reasoning.

How we got here

Date	Step
September 2025	High Court (Sheldon J), [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB): an unauthorised person conducting litigation under a solicitor's supervision commits an offence; supporting or assisting an authorised person is different
31 March 2026	Court of Appeal, [2026] EWCA Civ 369: that distinction rejected; supervised unauthorised staff may act for an authorised individual
31 March 2026	SRA statement welcoming the clarity and committing to review its guidance
29 May 2026	CILEx Regulation publishes updated guidance on conduct of litigation and supervision
12 June 2026	SRA publishes expanded supervision guidance with case studies

Conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity under section 12 of the Legal Services Act 2007. Carrying it on without entitlement is an offence under section 14 and also a contempt of court. The High Court decision in September 2025 caused real disruption, because many firms rely on paralegals, trainees and Chartered Legal Executives without full litigation rights to run files day to day.

What the judgment says about supervision

Responsibility stays with the authorised individual. They must direct, supervise and control the delegated work.
The level of supervision depends on the task. Some work may need close control and approval before steps are taken; for routine work, regular meetings and sampling may be enough.
Purely mechanical or administrative tasks fall outside the offence altogether.
Many tasks are unlikely to be conduct of litigation at all. The parties agreed a list including pre-litigation work, giving legal advice, corresponding with opponents, gathering evidence, instructing experts and counsel, and signing statements of truth.
The court said parts of the statutory definition remain unclear, so firms should expect some grey areas.

The SRA's expanded supervision guidance asks firms to check their arrangements are lawful and to take a risk-based approach tailored to their circumstances. The CILEx Regulation guidance covers delegation, the scope of litigation activity, supervision expectations and enforcement. The SRA's statement on the judgment points firms to its ethics helpline. For legal executives, see the legal executives guide and litigation after Mazur.

Why it matters for PI

The appeal removed the immediate fear that routine supervised work was criminal, but it moved the focus onto whether supervision was adequate. That is a PI question as much as a regulatory one.

Negligence claims follow weak supervision. A missed limitation date or defective service by a junior fee earner is still a claim against the firm. PI on SRA minimum terms usually responds to civil liability, subject to the terms.
Employees are usually insureds. Under the minimum terms, employees are commonly within the definition of insured; see who is an insured.
Criminal penalties are not insurable. PI does not pay fines, although some policies may contribute to defence costs in limited circumstances.
Proposal forms ask about supervision. Expect questions on fee earner qualifications, supervision ratios and file review. Answer accurately and update your broker if your model changed after September 2025.
Potential circumstances should be notified. If a costs challenge or complaint arose from the Mazur period, consider whether it is a circumstance; see claim versus circumstance.

Illustrative scenarios (not real cases)

Example 1: the restructured litigation team

After September 2025 a firm moved all court filings to two solicitors, creating a backlog. A claim form is issued late and the client's claim becomes time-barred. The client sues the firm. This is an ordinary negligence claim that PI would usually cover, subject to the excess.

Example 2: the unsupervised paralegal

A paralegal runs a portfolio of small claims with no file reviews. A defendant argues the work was not properly supervised and seeks to challenge costs. Even if the firm defends that successfully, a resulting loss to the client could become a PI claim, and the supervision failings may also attract regulatory attention.

Example 3: the CILEX practitioner with litigation rights

A CILEX Practitioner authorised for litigation runs a firm regulated by CILEx Regulation and supervises unauthorised staff. The same principles apply, and PI must meet CILEx Regulation requirements; see CILEx Regulation PI requirements.

Common misunderstandings

"Mazur means anyone can run litigation now." It does not. The judgment depends on an authorised individual carrying on the litigation, with real supervision and control. Unsupervised delegation, or work with no authorised individual responsible for it, falls outside the principle the court set out.
"Supervision is a compliance box, not an insurance issue." Insurers price and underwrite law firms partly on how work is supervised. A firm that cannot show who was responsible for a file may find claims harder to defend and renewals harder to place.
"The appeal undoes any problems from late 2025." The legal position is clarified, but operational problems from that period, such as backlogs, missed steps or rushed restructures, can still lead to negligence claims.
"Our policy covers whatever our staff do." Cover is tied to your declared practice areas and business description. Moving litigation work into new teams or entities without telling your broker can create gaps.
"Automated tools reduce the need to supervise." Drafting and case management tools do not supervise anyone. The authorised individual remains responsible for what is filed and served.

What to check now

Map who does what on every litigation file and who the responsible authorised individual is.
Record supervision: file reviews, approvals and how delegation decisions are made.
Read the SRA and CILEx Regulation guidance and update your policies to match.
Tell your broker about changes to staffing, supervision or work types since 2025.
Review cover for paralegals and Chartered Legal Executives working outside regulated firms.
Keep up with sector guidance in the solicitors PI guide 2026 and the CILEX PI guide 2026.

Apex arranges PI for law firms and legal professionals; a broker reads every enquiry.

Sources

Frequently asked

What did the Court of Appeal decide in Mazur?

On 31 March 2026, in [2026] EWCA Civ 369, the Court of Appeal held that unauthorised staff can lawfully perform tasks amounting to the conduct of litigation if they act for and on behalf of an authorised individual who has appropriate supervision and delegation arrangements. The authorised individual carries on the litigation and keeps responsibility.

Can paralegals conduct litigation after Mazur?

Paralegals and other unauthorised staff can carry out litigation tasks under the supervision of an authorised individual who remains responsible. They cannot conduct litigation in their own right. The level of supervision should match the task, and firms should follow the SRA or CILEx Regulation guidance published after the judgment.

Does PI cover claims caused by poor supervision?

Usually, yes. A negligence claim arising from a junior fee earner's mistake is generally a claim against the firm, and PI written on SRA minimum terms is designed to respond to civil liability subject to the policy terms. PI does not pay criminal fines or regulatory penalties.

What does Mazur mean for Chartered Legal Executives?

Chartered Legal Executives without their own litigation rights can carry out litigation tasks under the supervision of an authorised individual, in line with the Court of Appeal's ruling. CILEX Practitioners with litigation rights can conduct litigation themselves. CILEx Regulation published updated guidance on conduct of litigation and supervision in May 2026.

Do I need to tell my insurer about changes made after the High Court ruling?

If you changed staffing, supervision or the types of work you do, tell your broker before renewal and answer proposal questions accurately. If a complaint, costs challenge or possible loss arose from that period, consider whether it is a circumstance that should be notified under your policy.

Talk to a broker about this cover

Tell us what your business does, your turnover and any claims. A broker reads every enquiry and comes back with options. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.

Get a PI quote Request a callback

Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information, not advice on your individual circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.