Mazur & Stuart v. Charles Russell Speechlys LLP – The Current Position
By Regulation and Compliance Office
There have been a number of developments since we last wrote an article on this subject. These are well reported, and include:
The Legal Services Board approved an application from CILEx Regulation Limited (CRL) to allow legal executives to obtain standalone litigation practice rights –
https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/news/cilex-regulation-limiteds-application-for-stand-alonelitigation-rights. CILEx have issued guidance on how to apply for these rights –
https://cilexregulation.org.uk/information-crl-regulated-firms/standalone-litigation-practicerights-applications-open/.
CILEx have been granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Mazur judgment – https://www.cilex.org.uk/media/media_releases/cilex-granted-permission-appealmazur-25nov/.
Clarification has been provided that Mazur only applies to litigation and exemptions under Schedule 3 apply to other reserved legal services.
The Law Society have issued various updates, including 10 considerations when conducting litigation after Mazur – https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/civil-litigation/10-considerationswhen-conducting-litigation-after-mazur.
CILEX has updated its guidance on litigation and supervision –
https://cilexregulation.org.uk/mazur-litigation-and-supervision/.
Costs Lawyers have started to report that their clients are instructing them to challenge bills where there are insufficient details on ‘conduct v support.
The general guidance has been useful, and firms have started to settle into new ways of working.
Much of what has been issued has provided some of the needed clarification and set out expectations, enabling firms to respond to the Mazur ruling and adapt their working practices on litigation matters.
Mazur and the SRA – Self-Reporting
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has recently published its general views on Mazur and the impact on firms’ regulatory responsibilities – https://www.sra.org.uk/home/hottopics/conducting-litigation/.
A significant topic for firms is whether a self-report should be made for previous activity that has been in breach of the requirements of the Legal Services Act 2007 (‘LSA’). The SRA has stated:
If you conclude that you have been operating incorrectly in the past, you can make a self-report to us (by email or telephone). 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.
Whilst it is ‘warming’ to see the SRA will treat reports ‘sympathetically’, what firms need to know is whether they should or should not report. The use of the word ‘may’ is not overly helpful. What is clear is that if a firm sits in breach post-20 October 2025, then regulatory action will be taken by the SRA against the firm. This reinforces that firms must now fully comply with the requirements of the LSA regarding conduct of litigation and maintain their approach, unless the law changes. Failure to do so will result in the SRA taking action.
Should Firms Make a Self-Report?
Returning to the question of whether you should report or not, what are your options?:
Do Not Report – One way of looking at this is that the SRA have invited firms, without directly saying it, not to report. It has to be the case that the SRA cannot tell a firm which has clearly been in breach of their obligations NOT to make a report. This would fly in the face of the reason they are there.
It cannot be right for a regulator to set out that a firm does not have to report a serious breach. However, the SRA has used careful wording and inserted the word ‘may’ to indicate to firms that if a report is not made but you are now compliant, enforcement action will not be taken (or is unlikely).
In an ‘outcomes focused’ world, some firms may take the view that due to the wording used by the SRA, they will record the breach internally but not report on the grounds that they are now compliant.
File a Self-Report – For some firms, given that the SRA has not specifically said a report is not needed, they may take a risk-averse approach and file a report setting out that a breach has occurred and apologising for the misinterpretation of the law.
It appears that if a firm files such a report, it will not be ignored or passed over; rather, a sympathetic view will be taken. Is this an indication that the SRA will issue some form of warning and leave it at that?
An SRA warning will not be published and will be a private matter between the SRA and the firm.
It is hard to imagine that following a self-report, the SRA will do nothing at all.
The answer, therefore, can only be that:
If your firm is completely risk-averse, file a self-report and hope the SRA stay true to their word and takes a sympathetic view. It is important when filing the report to set out why you have been in breach, what you have done to ensure you are no longer in breach and how you will maintain a compliant position in the future.
If your firm interprets the use of the word ‘may’ as an invitation not to self-report but to record the report internally, on an outcomes-focused basis, then that is what you should do until the SRA dictates that firms must self-report. When recording your internal breach, ensure you also set out why you were in breach, what you have done to ensure you are no longer in breach, and how you will maintain a compliant position in the future.
Each firm will need to decide which category they sit in and take the action that they consider to be appropriate. However, doing nothing is not an option, and ensuring you are now compliant, and have documented this, is mandatory.
Compliance Support When Making a Self-Report to the Regulator
If you decide to file a report and are not clear how to do this, the Regulation and Compliance Office (RACO) can assist you, as we work with many firms by guiding them on the filing of selfreports, ensuring they are made properly.
If you wish to keep the breach internal to the firm and would like guidance on what to record, then again, we are able to offer support and guidance.
If you remain concerned that you are not compliant and would like to discuss what is compliant or would like to organise an audit, RACO can assist you.
Get in Touch with RACO
To ask any questions about RACO and how RACO can support your firm, call 0203 985 8550, complete the online enquiry form, or email info@regulationandcomplianceoffice.co.uk
RACO also have solutions to assist firms with achieving a compliant environment generally.
RACO have concluded an update to its Supervision Policy, which covers the Mazur issues, enabling firms to set out and document their approach to being compliant.
If your firm has engaged RACO for support and guidance, you can speak with your Compliance Manager, who will assist you in choosing which path is right for you.
Next Steps – How RACO may help
For those firms that utilise our services for regulation and compliance, we will engage directly with your team. For those who are not, you can contact us, and we will assist where possible. Alternatively, you can watch for updates as RACO issue them.
The seriousness of the issues raised by this case and the overall impact on staff and firms is significant, and RACO offers support .
