Supervising partner's accountability for an unsupervised paralegal's work (Code 3.5)
Sarah Whitlock, a partner in a personal injury firm, is the named supervisor of Liam, a paralegal who is not a solicitor. Sarah let Liam run a portfolio of road traffic accident claims with no file reviews and no checks on outgoing advice. Liam told one client that her claim was worth far less than it was, and she accepted a low offer on that basis. Sarah says she bears no responsibility because she did not do the work herself.
Which of the following best describes Sarah's position under the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer B: She remains accountable for the work carried out through Liam and was required to supervise it effectively.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
A solicitor who supervises or manages others remains accountable for the work carried out through them and must supervise it effectively, whether or not those supervised are solicitors.
Supervising partner's accountability for an unsupervised paralegal's work (Code 3.5)
Paragraph 3.5 of the Code provides that where a solicitor supervises or manages others providing legal services, (a) they remain accountable for the work carried out through them and (b) they must effectively supervise work being done for clients. Paragraph 3.6 adds that they must ensure the people they manage are competent and keep their knowledge and skills up to date. Sarah was Liam's supervisor but carried out no file reviews or checks. She cannot avoid accountability for the incorrect advice by pointing out that she did not do the work herself, or that Liam is not a solicitor. Her failure to supervise is itself a breach. If any of the claims had been issued, the lack of supervision would also matter under the Legal Services Act 2007: following Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2026] EWCA Civ 369, a non-authorised person may conduct litigation only under the supervision of an authorised individual who puts appropriate supervision and delegation arrangements in place. The firm also has duties under the Code of Conduct for Firms, including to have an effective system for supervising clients' matters (para 4.4). Sarah and the firm must also be honest and open with the client about what went wrong (Code para 7.11).
Why A is wrong: Para 3.5 makes a supervising solicitor accountable for work carried out through those she supervises, whether or not they are solicitors.
Why C is wrong: The COLP has firm-wide compliance duties, but that does not displace the supervising solicitor's own accountability under para 3.5.
Why D is wrong: Accountability under para 3.5 extends to all the work carried out through the people she supervises.
Why E is wrong: Regulatory accountability does not depend on a client complaint.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Acting against a former client whose confidential information you hold (SRA Code paras 6.3-6.5)
Which of the following best describes whether Ashby Cole LLP may act for Petra?
Joint clients forming a company who then disagree on a shareholders' agreement term (Code 6.2)
Which of the following best describes the firm's position under the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs?
Client instructs solicitor to withhold and delete a damaging disclosable document (Code 1.4 and 2.1)
What should Hannah do?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.