Lawyers Covered - December 2025

What could be more festive than our December edition of Lawyers Covered – so here it is, a gift from the Lawyers Liability and Regulatory Group at RPC, to all of you, our valued readers! Happy holidays!

Mazur's frost settles until appeal judgment in new year

The uncertainty created by Mazur continues (see the October edition for our summary of the case), CILEX now having been granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, with an expedited hearing listed for 24 February 2026. The Law Society confirmed on 16 December that it has also been granted permission to be joined as a respondent in the appeal.

Meanwhile, the SRA has issued a statement indicating that it will take a sympathetic approach to pre-Mazur breaches "of genuine error based on mistaken interpretation of the law" prior to 20 October 2025 – but that those who fail to address the judgment will feel the full force of the SRA's enforcement powers.

While the SRA in Mazur declined to make a finding whether the individual in question was conducting litigation to avoid cutting across any regulatory action by the SRA, the SRA has similarly declined to make a definitive statement, commenting that "the question of whether an unauthorised individual has acted in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007 in relation to the conduct of a reserved legal activity is ultimately a matter for the courts." Clearly more risk averse since the criticism it received in the judgment, the SRA's new statement contains myriad caveats, stressing that each situation is fact dependent, stating "it is not our role to interpret legislation or give legal advice to the wider legal community or to define terms used in legislation" and encouraging firms to take their own legal advice. In line with their submissions in Mazur, the new guidance focuses on identifying who has ultimate responsibility for the steps taken in the litigation, and on who is exercising professional judgment on how the matter is being conducted.

It is hoped that the appeal judgment is handed down promptly to help resolve uncertainty amongst many in the legal profession – at firm and personal level. Help and support is available from LawCare or via your myCILEX account.

Santa isn't the only fake: more AI misbehaviour before the courts

AI promises efficiency but can expose practitioners and firms to heightened liability. Many do not fully appreciate the risks, so it is advisable to understand them now -before finding out the hard way.

A law firm recently faced the court's ire for drafting a witness statement on the basis of research carried out by a paralegal using, in part, Google's AI Overview – a feature which Wikipedia reports as having been "widely criticized as producing misleading, nonsensical, and potentially dangerous claims". The partner had failed to verify the research and incorporated it into his statement, leading to fictitious cases being cited in the High Court dispute.

Another warning shot on the use of AI arose in a recent US case, Mendones v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., in which deepfake videos of purported witnesses were submitted as evidence. Deepfakes are videos, pictures or audio clips, usually created with AI, to mimic a real person. The wide availability of AI tools now mean that it is easier than ever to put words in someone's mouth. The judge struck out a claim by litigants-in-person who had filed two fake videos in support of an application for summary judgment. One of the videos can be viewed online here and features a robotic-seeming woman whose mouth movements do not match the words being spoken. The case also featured an altered still photograph taken from a Ring doorbell. The Judge noted that a lot of AI was “still a bit off or easy to spot”; however, he added: “It is not about what GenAI can do today; it is about the pace of change". This development is worth bearing in mind, as many jurisdictions are likely to encounter similar forms of deepfake evidence being submitted. The judge did not refer the litigant for prosecution, suggesting a more lenient attitude may be taken where the litigant is self-represented. In this jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal recently commented that it was "entirely understandable" for a self-represented mother in family proceedings to turn to AI as "litigants in person are in a difficult position putting forward legal arguments".

Lastly, AI-generated pleadings and correspondence are becoming more common, but it is essential any AI-generated wording is rigorously checked over for accuracy (i.e. that cases are legitimate and sources are verified), as failure to do so could mislead the Court. A recent judgment in Frederick Ayinde v The London Borough of Haringey criticised a law firm for the use of pleadings citing fake, AI‑generated cases. Read our analysis of the decision here.

Trust is for life, not just for qualification; why ethics training must be strengthened and reinforced throughout a lawyers' career

Public scrutiny of the legal profession is as high as ever, whilst public confidence and trust is worryingly low.  Reported criticisms such as the lawyers' involvement in the Post Office Horizon scandal, the use of non-disclosure agreements to conceal wrong doing (particularly in relation to public figures) and the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) to stifle lawful scrutiny continue to erode any trust the public has retained.

Earlier this year the Legal Services Board called for regulators to strengthen ethical training from the outset of our careers; now the House of Lords have taken this thought a step further.  In a report by the Constitution Committee, The rule of law: Holding the line against tyranny and anarchy, the Peers have called for lawyers to receive dedicated ethical training throughout their careers.  Whilst the Peers acknowledge the obligations placed on solicitors and barristers by the SRA and BSB respectively, they note with concern that there is “almost no ethical training in our profession and there is no mandated requirement for ongoing ethics training”.  They also highlight that the training that does exist is outdated and fails to address emerging ethical concerns.  

As is acknowledged in the report there are certainly factors outside of our control that has undermined trust in our profession, but widely reported poor ethical behaviour from within has reinforced a negative view from the public.  The Peers have therefore recommended that in addition to strengthening the ethical training at the outset, lawyers should receive dedicated ethical training throughout their careers.  The Constitution Committee's call will take time to develop but meanwhile firms will no doubt be considering their ethical standards and training through a revitalised lens.

You've drawn your bill of costs, now make sure you check it twice: lessons from the SCCO

We have recently had cause to consider the Senior Courts Costs Office decision, Hyder v Aidat-Sarran ([2024] EWHC 3686 (SCCO)), which highlights the importance of costs management and solicitor oversight. The case before the Costs Judge arose out of the claimant’s repeated failures to serve a compliant bill of costs, culminating in two defective bills despite clear directions and points of dispute.

There were two applications before the court. The first was the claimant’s application for relief from sanction for the late service of their bill of costs, and the second was the defendants’ application under CPR 44.11 to strike out the costs claim due to persistent breaches. CPR44.11 sets out the Court's powers in relation to misconduct and applies to any party or legal representative who, in connection with costs proceedings, is found to have acted “unreasonably or improperly".

The judge confirmed that they were not in a position to make a positive finding of improper conduct but did state that 'serving an unchecked bill without any caveat must come very close'.  Whilst it was held there were multiple breaches, which were unexplained and inexcusable, the judge was persuaded that lesser sanctions were appropriate, and 'a strike out would be too draconian'.

In addition, the judge emphasised that solicitors cannot evade responsibility by blaming costs lawyers and cited Gempride v Bamrah [2018] EWCA Civ 1367 in support. The judge confirmed solicitors are vicariously liable for their agents’ failings and must exercise proper oversight and stated that claimant and their solicitors were fortunate the bill was not struck out in its entirety.  Ultimately, the court decided on a severe penalty, which was a reduction of 75% in the claimant’s costs.  

It is clear that failures in costs management, especially those involving repeated and/or unexplained breaches, can result in serious sanctions. Robust internal processes and genuine attempts at mitigation are essential to maintain the court's confidence.

Peace on earth and good will to all… people! The LSB’s new consultation on diversity and inclusion

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has launched a significant consultation on its proposed statement of policy to encourage a diverse legal profession in England and Wales, which it says 'sits at the heart' of the LSB's statutory responsibilities and strategic ambitions. While the primary focus is on improving diversity and inclusion across the sector, the proposals carry notable implications for the professional liability market, particularly for law firms, their insurers, and risk managers.

Background and aims

The consultation is taking place in response to well-evidenced barriers to diversity within the legal profession. Despite acknowledging some progress, the LSB confirms significant gaps remain in entry, progression, and retention and this is particularly the case for women, minoritised ethnic groups, disabled individuals, and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The consultation quotes a gender pay gap for solicitors of 25.4% and an ethnicity pay gap of 25%. It also states that 'junior women at the bar earn 77% of what junior men earn'.

The consultation aims to address issues such as biased recruitment, unequal work allocation, pay disparities, and non-inclusive workplace cultures. These practices can undermine public trust in the profession as well as limiting the sector’s ability to serve society effectively.  By proposing a new regulatory approach, the LSB seeks to dismantle these barriers by promoting fairness and ensuring the profession better reflects the diversity of the communities it serves.  

What is the LSB proposing?

The LSB’s draft policy sets out four outcomes for legal services regulators:

1. Strategic, evidence-based, and collaborative action on diversity.
2. Fairness and equality in regulatory approaches and decision-making.
3. Accessible, flexible, and inclusive pathways into and through the profession.
4. Frameworks for professional conduct and competence that support diversity.

Regulators will be expected to implement both core and enhanced expectations, which range from mandatory data monitoring and equality impact assessments to promoting inclusive leadership and transparent pay gap reporting.

Liability implications for law firms

For the professional liability market, the proposals present both risks and opportunities:

• Increased scrutiny and accountability: Firms may be required to publish diversity data as well as strategic action plans. This aims to make workplace culture and equality practices more visible to both clients and the public.  If a firm fails to meet these standards, it could lead to exposure of reputational risk, regulatory investigation, or claims from employees and clients alleging discrimination or unfair treatment.
• Expanded scope of misconduct: The LSB expects regulators to embed anti-bullying, anti-harassment, and anti-discrimination duties into codes of conduct, with clear channels available for raising concerns. This could lead to an uptick in internal complaints and, if mishandled, also external claims against firms and individual practitioners.
• Impact on risk profiles: Insurers may need to reassess risk models to account for new regulatory standards and the potential for claims arising from workplace culture, recruitment, progression, and mental health practices. Firms that have robust diversity and inclusion frameworks in place that are regularly reviewed may be considered more favourably, while those lagging behind could face higher premiums or coverage exclusions in non-MTC policies.

Law firms should review their diversity, inclusion, and conduct policies and ensure that there are clear reporting mechanisms. This will include the provision of training for both managers and staff.  The practice of transparent data collection and regular review of that data will not only support compliance but will also help to mitigate any liability risks.

For more information, please visit the LSB website. The consultation closes on 2 March 2026.

Not-so-silent night for law firm tricked into revealing client secrets

In a reminder to lawyers to stay vigilant this festive season, it has been reported that a private investigator's unethical methods tricked a solicitor into revealing client confidential information. The newly promoted partner, whose identity was withheld, was plied with alcoholic drinks at meetings he believed were with a potential new client and "skilfully and tenaciously steered" into discussing the litigation and giving insights into settlement strategy.

Eager to impress, the partner had been "lulled into a force sense of confidence and security" and acted out of courtesy or cultural sensitivity, with the court commenting that he had been "deceived and played for a fool by a skilful and well-prepared interrogator". However, he divulged more than he should have done and has been reported to the SRA. Meanwhile, the court declined to strike out the claim, despite finding that the claimants' unethical behaviour was an abuse of process.

A number of lessons emerge:

1. Ensure that reputable enquiry agents are instructed with express terms that they must not engage in unethical methods of information gathering.
2. Think twice before reading or relying on material presented by clients. In this case, the court noted that the claimants' original solicitors refused to review the material gathered by the enquiry agent, although the next firm instructed incorporated the information into a witness statement without any attempt to "hive it off".
3. Remain alert to traps and frauds, especially at this time of year, when the unscrupulous aiming to take advantage of staff absence and office closures to obtain information or funds. Verify any unexpected requests, especially if urgency is expressed.

Tinsel to tribunals: regulator should have good reason to depart from usual procedure for referring complaint to Tribunal Convenor (Hong Kong)

In "The Matter of Section 9A(1) of Legal Practitioners Ordinance" [2025] HKCFI 5383, the High Court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review against a decision of the Council of the Law Society of Hong Kong to refer a complaint against him to the Tribunal Convenor of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Panel. The applicant had been a serving Council member. The Council (the respondent) is the governing body for the solicitors' profession in Hong Kong. It appears that the complaint is the first time that the Council has referred a complaint against a serving Council member to the Tribunal Covenor.

The complaint related to two alleged breaches of confidentiality concerning the Council's proceedings. A complaint of professional conduct against a Hong Kong solicitor is usually referred to a Standing Committee and an Investigation Committee – pursuant to delegated authority from the Council – before deciding whether to make a referral to the Tribunal Convenor. On this occasion, the Council decided to refer the complaint directly to the Tribunal Convenor because of the unusual circumstances and practical difficulties with referring a complaint against a Council member to the Standing Committee.

The applicant obtained permission to proceed with a judicial review on two grounds. First, whether the decision was procedurally irregular. Second, whether the decision was procedurally improper for "apparent bias" – the decision having been made by the Council against one of its own members.

In a fully reasoned and lengthy judgment, the High Court dismissed the application but not before having thoroughly examined the legal issues and the usual procedure with respect to complaints against solicitors, including Council members.

While the facts are unusual, a number of points are worth noting:

• A regulator's usual complaint-handling and investigation process need not be inflexible, but where it is departed from, the regulator should have good reason for doing so. The default position is that usual and published regulatory procedures should be followed. On a judicial review a supervisory court will carefully examine the reasons for departure from such procedures.
• Crucially, before making its decision in this case, the Council had appointed an Independent Panel (comprised of three Past Presidents) to investigate the matter, which found that the applicant had breached his duty of confidentiality. The court considered that by appointing the Independent Panel the Council had probably "gone beyond and above the usual level of procedural safeguard that would be afforded to a solicitor the subject of a complaint" (at [119]).
• At the material times the Council had obtained independent and specialist legal advice as to how to handle the complaint.
• The decision is not a finding of unprofessional conduct, but a decision to refer the complaint to the Tribunal Convenor. While the Independent Panel and the other nineteen Council members (all lawyers) agreed that there had been a breach of confidentiality, whether this constitutes professional misconduct is a matter for the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, should the matter proceed that far. 

With thanks to our additional contributors: Sally Lord, Aimee Talbot, Cat Zakarias-Welch and Susan Periselneris.