SRA moves to calm sector after Mazur court ruling as CLC says probate remains unaffected

SRA moves to calm sector after Mazur court ruling as CLC says probate remains unaffected

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has sought to settle nerves across the legal sector after a High Court ruling in Mazur confirmed that legal executives cannot conduct litigation unless they hold their own rights to do so, even if a solicitor supervises them. The regulator issued a statement this week addressing concerns that the decision could reach beyond court work into everyday services. Reports in sector media suggested some firms had temporarily pulled legal executives from casework, including conveyancing and wills and probate, while they reviewed risk. In a separate message to the market, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers reiterated that the ruling has no implications for CLC-regulated probate work, seeking to reassure firms and clients that services will continue as normal.

Context and timing
The SRA’s statement came in early October 2025, following the High Court’s Mazur decision, which has prompted wide discussion across England and Wales. The issue centres on what counts as the “conduct of litigation” under the Legal Services Act 2007 and who is legally permitted to carry it out. The CLC published its own clarification around the same time, emphasising that the court’s finding about litigation does not change the statutory framework for conveyancing or probate that it regulates.

SRA moves to calm sector after Mazur court ruling as CLC says probate remains unaffected

What the Mazur ruling decided

The Mazur ruling addressed a narrow, but important, point of law: whether a legal executive without a personal grant of litigation rights can lawfully conduct litigation when supervised by an authorised person, such as a solicitor. The court held that supervision does not convert an unauthorised person into an authorised one for the purposes of reserved legal activities. In practical terms, if an activity falls within “conduct of litigation,” the individual doing it must hold their own rights to litigate.

Under the Legal Services Act 2007, conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity. It generally covers formal steps in proceedings, such as issuing claims, acknowledging service, and taking procedural steps managed by the courts. Only authorised persons—including solicitors, barristers with litigation rights, and CILEX practitioners individually authorised for litigation—may carry it out. The court in Mazur clarified that firms cannot rely on supervision alone to satisfy that requirement.

SRA sets out its position and next steps for firms

Responding to sector concern, the SRA said it recognises the practical questions raised by Mazur and outlined how firms should approach compliance. The regulator made clear that the judgment relates to conduct of litigation and does not prevent legal executives from continuing to handle non-reserved legal work under appropriate supervision. It reminded firms that only individuals who hold the relevant authorisation may perform reserved activities, and that systems and controls must reflect that rule.

The SRA also addressed the boundary between administrative support and reserved activity. While legal executives and other staff can manage files, draft documents, and liaise with clients, they must not take steps that amount to conducting litigation unless they hold the necessary rights. The regulator encouraged firms to audit roles and workflows, ensure that court documents and formal procedural steps are completed by authorised individuals, and maintain clear records that show who did what and when.

Conveyancing and wills: why most work continues as usual

The Mazur decision has triggered short-term caution in some practices. Reports indicated that a small number of firms paused the involvement of legal executives in areas like conveyancing and wills pending legal advice. However, conveyancing and probate are distinct reserved activities—known as “reserved instrument activities” and “probate activities”—with their own statutory authorisations. They are not the same as the conduct of litigation. The core work in buying and selling property or drafting wills therefore remains unaffected by the Mazur point about litigation rights.

Legal executives and other fee-earners commonly undertake large parts of these workflows under supervision, and that model remains lawful for non-reserved tasks. Where a step is itself a reserved activity—such as completing certain conveyancing instruments or conducting probate activities—the individual must be authorised in the relevant way. Firms already structure teams to comply with those requirements, and the SRA guidance indicates that approach still stands.

CLC reiterates probate is unaffected by the ruling

The Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates specialist conveyancing and certain probate services in England and Wales, reiterated that the Mazur ruling has no implications for CLC-regulated probate. The CLC highlighted that its licensed practitioners hold explicit authorisations for probate activities under the Legal Services Act framework, separate from litigation rights. As such, the court’s finding about litigation does not alter the ability of CLC-regulated firms to deliver probate work to consumers.

The CLC’s message aims to reduce the risk of unnecessary disruption. Consumers can still expect continuity of service in probate matters regulated by the CLC, and firms can continue to allocate work within their existing authorisation models. Where litigation arises in a probate dispute, however, the conduct of that court process must be handled by individuals with litigation rights—just as before Mazur.

Understanding the boundaries of reserved legal activities

The Legal Services Act 2007 sets out six reserved legal activities: rights of audience, conduct of litigation, reserved instrument activities (including conveyancing), probate activities, notarial activities, and the administration of oaths. Unreserved legal work—such as general legal advice, negotiation, and drafting that does not cross a reserved threshold—can be carried out by non-authorised individuals under supervision in regulated firms. Mazur speaks to one of those six categories: conduct of litigation.

This legal map matters for practice. If a task falls within a reserved category, the individual must hold the appropriate personal authorisation or rights granted by a regulator such as the SRA, CLC, the Bar Standards Board, or CILEX Regulation. If the task is unreserved, it can be delegated, but the firm remains responsible for ensuring competence, supervision, and clear client communication about who is doing the work and their status.

What firms and clients should expect in the coming weeks

In the short term, firms are reviewing job descriptions, workflows, and document signing protocols to ensure that only authorised litigators complete formal court steps. Training sessions and file audits are likely, as are updates to engagement letters and information for clients explaining who will handle which parts of a matter. These adjustments aim to give clarity, minimise risk, and maintain service levels.

Clients should see little change in day-to-day conveyancing, wills, and probate services. Most of that work is either unreserved and supervised or carried out by professionals who already hold the necessary authorisations. Where a matter moves into litigation—for example, a dispute over a will—firms will ensure that an individual with litigation rights takes the formal steps in court, while legal executives and other team members continue to support the case within the rules.

Compliance, risk and market stability

Regulators, professional bodies and insurers all place strong emphasis on clear allocation of responsibility for reserved activities. The SRA’s message reinforces established principles: get the authorisation right, record it, and supervise effectively. Insurers will expect firms to demonstrate that they have adjusted processes in light of Mazur and that they have trained staff on the boundaries of reserved work.

The broader market picture remains stable. The ruling clarifies, rather than rewrites, the law. It does not strip legal executives of their role in delivering legal services, nor does it halt the routine work of conveyancing and probate. It underscores the need for precise compliance around litigation steps and for transparent communication with clients about who holds what rights.

Wrap-up
The SRA’s clarification following the Mazur ruling aims to draw a clear line: litigation steps belong to people with litigation rights; everything else continues under the existing regulatory framework. The CLC has reinforced that message for probate, confirming that its practitioners can carry on as before. Firms now focus on fine-tuning processes—checking who signs court documents, updating guidance for teams, and explaining roles to clients—to align with the court’s view. For consumers, the takeaway is simple: conveyancing, wills and probate services remain available and stable. For practitioners, the priority is sound compliance and accurate delegation. Further guidance from regulators would help cement consistency across the sector, but the direction of travel is already set: maintain service, respect the statutory boundaries, and keep clients informed.