The long-awaited Mazur Appeal Judgment, handed down on 31 March 2026 and covered in full by the Law Gazette in its live blog, 'Live: Mazur judgment day' is one of the most significant rulings affecting the legal services workforce in recent years. For professional indemnity (PII) insurers, the judgment is simultaneously clarifying and cautionary.

The key outcome is that the appeal has been upheld, restoring pre-existing arrangements for CILEX (Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) practitioners and meaning that, provided appropriate safeguards are in place, the arrangements that existed pre-Mazur can now resume, with the Court emphasising proper direction, management, and supervision as principles that have always been integral to competent and compliant practice. 

Background

CILEX practitioners qualify through a work-based vocational route and are authorised to conduct reserved legal activities within SRA-regulated firms. The original Mazur ruling cast doubt on whether the SRA's regulatory umbrella provided sufficient authorisation for CILEX members conducting reserved work, creating significant uncertainty about the lawfulness of work carried out by thousands of practitioners across England and Wales. Until the appeal judgment, the Mazur ruling had placed CILEX members under considerable pressure and uncertainty, and the disruption, anxiety, and professional challenges experienced over the past months should not be underestimated. The decision will undoubtedly be seen as a setback for the SRA and the Law Society, but a welcome return to common sense for many practitioners.

Key findings

The Court confirmed that, provided appropriate safeguards are in place, the pre-Mazur arrangements can resume, with proper direction, management, and supervision affirmed as principles integral to competent and compliant practice. The Court held that SRA-regulated firms' existing supervisory structures are capable of providing adequate oversight of CILEX practitioners, provided those structures are genuinely robust. Requiring dual authorisation would be disproportionate and contrary to the Legal Services Act 2007's objectives of promoting access to justice and a competitive legal market.

Implications for insurers

Underwriting 

The Court's emphasis on proper direction, management, and supervision is now judicial doctrine, not merely regulatory guidance. Underwriters have clear grounds to treat a firm's supervisory framework for CILEX practitioners as a material risk factor. Proposal forms should be updated to include targeted questions on CILEX-to-solicitor supervision ratios, file review frequency, whether reserved activities are conducted unsupervised, and how oversight is documented. Firms unable to demonstrate robust arrangements should attract risk loading.

Interim period claims exposure

The period between the original ruling and the appeal represents a period of acute claims interest. Firms may have restricted CILEX roles or continued operating under legal uncertainty. Coverage questions include whether non-disclosure of the regulatory position at renewal affects cover, whether the MTC's broad 'civil liability' language responds to interim period claims, and whether SRA regulatory breaches trigger exclusions.

Based on general knowledge of the SRA's Minimum Terms and Conditions, the broad aggregation provisions may assist insurers in managing this exposure, but excess layer wordings in particular will require careful review against their own manuscript language.

Notification obligations

Firms that identified potential issues with CILEX authorisation during the interim period may have had notification obligations under their PI policies. Late notification could prejudice coverage, and insurers should proactively review whether affected insureds met their reporting duties.

Market capacity

Resolution of the uncertainty is broadly positive. A clearer regulatory environment reduces tail risk for CILEX-heavy firms and may support more confident and potentially more competitive pricing at renewal.

Conclusion

The Court's reaffirmation that proper direction, management, and supervision are principles integral to competent and compliant practice. These are the areas that insurers will want to concentrate on when underwriting such risks.