The conduct of litigation was covered by guidance that regulators read in different ways. Nobody settled the difference. That is the core finding of a Legal Services Board report published on 27 July 2026. It looked at the advice given to the sector before the Mazur case. The LSB found missed chances rather than misconduct, and took no enforcement action.
What did the LSB review find?
The review looked at how regulators explained one of the reserved legal activities under the Legal Services Act 2007. Its verdict on what came after the rulings is warm. Regulators moved fast and updated their guidance.
The problem sat earlier.
Advice to the sector varied in clarity over the years. It varied in consistency. It varied in how much detail it gave. Answers to firms shifted over time, as regulators built up different readings of the same Act. The LSB also found a blind spot. Regulators could not see how supervision of unadmitted staff worked on the ground.
Five regulators and the Law Society have issued new guidance since the Court of Appeal ruled. The LSB says it is far better aligned than before. It also says it could be better still.
The 2022 exchange that was never resolved
One episode carries most of the report’s weight.
In 2022, CILEx Regulation went to the SRA. Its reading of the Act let staff conduct litigation under supervision. The SRA set out a different reading, and put that reading in its guidance.
Neither body took the clash further. It was never pushed up. It was never settled. Firms were left with two answers and no way to choose.
The report picks up a second thread. The SRA did not go back to its own 2017 review of personal injury legal services. That review had found firms using large numbers of unadmitted staff under solicitor supervision. The evidence sat on file. Nobody joined it to the legal question.
Why did the LSB take no enforcement action?
Because it judged the errors too small to need it.
The LSB is the oversight regulator. It can act against approved regulators. It framed this review as work done with them, not against them.
Not everyone liked that framing. CILEX chief executive Jennifer Coupland said her body accepts the findings. She also said the LSB skated over its own missed chances. It could have given the sector clarity long before the case blew up. LSB chief executive Richard Orpin said guidance must be clear, consistent and underpinned by robust regulatory assurance.
What happens next
Each regulator has to review and tighten how it checks up on firms. The point is to see how supervision runs, not to assume it runs well.
The LSB will also review guidance on the other reserved legal activities. It is looking for the same pattern: two readings, no referee.
That second piece of work is the one to watch. The list is long. Rights of audience. Reserved instrument activities. Probate work. Notarial acts. The administration of oaths. Each has drawn the same question, and it is always the same question. Who may do this under supervision?
Mazur changed who may conduct litigation, and the LSB has now confirmed the confusion was a regulatory failure rather than firms misreading the Act. Practically: treat the SRA’s updated effective supervision guidance as the operative standard, check which staff are conducting litigation rather than assisting with it, and expect your regulator to start asking about assurance processes.
What should firms check now?
The law is settled for now.
In September 2025 the High Court ruled in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP. Working at an authorised firm was not enough on its own. An employee did not conduct litigation just by being employed there, even under supervision. Firms reassigned work. Some staff lost roles. CILEX appealed.
In March 2026 the Court of Appeal reversed that ruling. Unadmitted staff do not carry on the conduct of litigation just by doing tasks that fall within the statutory definition. They must work under the supervision of an authorised person. The SRA’s updated guidance on effective supervision followed.
So the question has moved. It is no longer whether unadmitted staff may do the work. It is whether a firm can show the supervision that makes the work lawful. That is what the LSB’s actions point at, and it is a records question as much as a legal one.
There is a sharp edge here. A breach of the Act on conducting litigation is both a criminal offence and a contempt of court. That is why this belongs with the return of accountants’ reports and the move of AML supervision to the FCA on the compliance list, not the reading list.