I know, I know… many lawyers are thinking they dislike this insight already. Firstly, because TOM design feels corporate, which I understand can put lawyers off immediately, and secondly, because there is a significant amount of Mazur fatigue for many excellent lawyers who have been affected by the judgment.
Lessons from Mazur are wider than law firms alone
I have worked in the legal services industry for much of my career, and I understand how this decision, particularly in clarifying the areas of supervision and reserved legal activity, will influence how law firms are structured moving forward.
However, although this judgment is legally specific, its lessons extend far beyond the legal arena and into nearly every regulated sector. It provides guidance on what is likely to become the expected standard, while also outlining considerations that unregulated entities should look to follow.
All businesses should, as part of their continuity planning, consider this judgment, as well as the work law firms will need to undertake in its wake. Many of these activities will be transferable across all sectors.
Impact on Target Operating Models
For law firms, Mazur raises major questions about how business units and departments are structured, as well as the practicalities of who does what, when, and how supervision is evidenced.
However, if we think laterally, none of these points are limited to legal entities. All businesses need to consider these points on an annual basis as part of a solid foundation strategy.
Key areas for consideration:
Resource allocation:
How are tasks allocated, to whom, and at what point in the process? What is paramount is ensuring that the person defined as the controlling mind is aware of ongoing issues and directs the next steps to the relevant person based on experience or purview.
Workflows and delegation:
Businesses should revisit workflows to ensure they are fit for purpose. They should not be overly convoluted, and when dealing with client issues should drive work to the correct individual at the correct time to add value and ensure the advice or product is fit for purpose.
Cost and profitability:
Using different levels of resource is normal in any business; however, mapping your process ensures that your highest cost resource only carries out the tasks required to enable them to be the controlling mind, or in the case of Mazur, the regulated activity.
Technology and automation:
As firms look to reduce human cost and increase efficiency, technology becomes more attractive, but it will never remove the need for authorised oversight. The operating model should build in how technology augments the offering while maintaining human oversight at key junctures.
Governance:
When decisions are made and strategies set, it is important to fully document the decision and, where possible, the rationale. This enables a business to critically assess problems that may arise in the future, and provides context for why processes or systems have been created in that way.
Activities that can help
If you are leading operations, finance, legal practice management or are part of the C suite in any regulated or even non regulated sector, here are some practical next steps:
Map your current operating model:
Identify how a client or product flows from cradle to grave. Even at a high level, this will enable you to spot areas of inefficiency or risk. You can then add granularity over time.
Classify your resource:
This can be done through a seniority matrix based on role or costs to the business, for example cost per seat or charge out rate. Regardless of methodology, it is key that you classify all resources to ensure issues are directed to them at the appropriate time and, in the case of Mazur, comply with the Legal Services Act.
Delegation structures:
Delegation is not the enemy. It is necessary. Businesses that operate at scale need to reallocate tasks; however, sufficient checks must be in place throughout the process to strengthen supervision and oversight, and escalation pathways must be clearly defined.
Define roles and responsibilities:
Clearly outlining to people in your business what their role is and what they are accountable for is key to delivery. Reviewing roles and ensuring that role and responsibility documents remain fit for purpose is an ongoing activity that should be undertaken at least annually.
Document and evidence supervision:
Ensure authorised staff sign off key steps, oversight logs are maintained, delegated tasks are clear, and accountability is crystal clear.
Final thought
Mazur is more than a singular litigation case. It is both a warning and an opportunity for law firms to revisit and strengthen their Target Operating Models, but the principles are not exclusive to law firms. They are wide reaching and apply across many sectors.
Those that anticipate the implications, redesign with clarity, and document compliance will be better placed to manage risk, preserve profitability and demonstrate resilience. Firms that delay may face cost challenges, regulatory scrutiny and business model strain.
If you are considering reviewing your operating model or workflow design, I would be happy to discuss how we might approach that together.
Who’s behind this post?
Chris Johnson
Director & Co-Founder
Chris Johnson is a Chartered Legal Executive and Co-Founder of Arx Nova. He specialises in legal risk, governance, and business restructuring during periods of instability. With over 17 years of experience across the legal and professional services sectors, Chris supports leadership teams to regain control, navigate complexity, and stabilise quickly.
