SRA: Long-awaited guidance
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) will respond “sympathetically” to self-reports from those who may have been operating incorrectly under the terms of the Mazur ruling.
But it warned those who had not addressed the ruling to expect firmer action.
The regulator has today finally issued a steer on its approach to enforcement, noting that – as it said in its submissions to Mr Justice Sheldon – “we could not identify a case which drew a bright line between conducting litigation and supporting litigation”.
Key factors, it said, included “who has assumed ultimate responsibility for the steps taken in the litigation”, and “who is exercising their judgment in respect of how it is being progressed (on a day-to-day basis in terms of steps taken and ultimate responsibility for direction of the matter)”.
The regulator recognised there has been “concern and confusion” in the profession.
“If you conclude that you have been operating incorrectly in the past, you can make a self-report to us. While each case turns on its own facts, we will treat sympathetically self-reported incidences of genuine error based on mistaken interpretation of the law, prior to us publishing this page on 20 October 2025.
“If you are conducting a reserved activity without authorisation and have not addressed the implications of the judgment and our guidance, you can expect us to use all appropriate investigative and enforcement powers to identify and address this misconduct.”
CILEx Regulation (CRL) has taken a firmer position, saying last month that “CILEX members practising in line with the prevailing guidance and their firms procedures in operation at the time pre-Mazur are not required to self-report to CRL”.
Leading regulatory barrister Greg Treverton-Jones KC has called on the SRA to take a similar stance.
Iain Miller, the solicitor acting for CILEX in its appeal against Mazur, said last week that the Court of Appeal had directed an expedited hearing and he hoped it would take place in the early part of next year.
He explained that the court will have to decide between statutory interpretation and “the contextual argument” in reaching a decision.
