Legal Insight or Legal Advice?

There’s a fine line between talking about the law and giving legal advice, and it’s a line that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) pays very close attention to. As more legal discussion moves online, understanding where that line sits is extremely important, because what sounds like harmless commentary can easily slip into territory reserved for qualified solicitors.

Sharing knowledge is valuable; it makes the law more accessible and shows initiative. That said, the law does distinguish between “sharing” and “advising”: under the Legal services Act 2007, only individuals and entities with authorisation can provide certain “reserved” legal services. This doesn’t stop discussion of the law, but it does restrict personal application of it.

The SRA’s guidance on non-authorised persons explains that individuals who aren’t regulated lawyers can only carry out legal work under supervision. For instance, they may prepare legal documents or assist on cases but cannot appear in court or act as though they’re qualified lawyers. While the guidance doesn’t restrict general discussion of the law, it draws a firm line against giving personal legal advice or implying professional status. In short, explaining is fine, instructing is not.

This boundary was reinforced in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP , where the High Court decision showed that even within firms, not everyone can “conduct litigation”. Paralegals can assist, draft and support but cannot act as though they are solicitors. Similarly, the SRA disqualified a legal assistant after he handled injunction proceedings without proper authorisation having thought that his supervision covered his actions. Both examples underline the same principle: qualification and authorisation aren’t just technicalities but safeguards.

The same logic applies outside traditional practice. Such regulation exists to protect the public, not to restrict conversation. When legal commentary blurs into advice, there’s a risk that people will act on what they believe to be professional guidance, without any of the safeguards that come with regulated legal advice. The issue isn’t who’s talking about the law but whether the public could be misled into relying on something that isn’t properly supervised or accountable.

That lesson applies to anyone writing about the law in the public sphere. The safest approach is to share general insight, not instruction. Write about developments in the law, analysis of commercial contexts or even simply explaining how the law works, just avoid applying that knowledge to specific circumstances. The moment your words start sounding like “you should” or “you can claim”, you’re moving into work that regulators classify as reserved legal work.

It isn’t about holding back from writing; it’s about being clear on what you can and cannot say. Disclaimers and keeping the focus on explanation over instruction maintains that clarity and keeps your work within safe bounds. Legal blogging should contribute to discussion, not replace legal advice. The SRA isn’t trying to stop people from being informed, it’s trying to protect the public from being misled and knowing the difference between legal insight and legal advice is what keeps your content credible and keeps you on the right side of regulation.

1. Legal Services Act 2007
2. Solicitors Regulation Authority, How We Regulate Non-Authorised Persons https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/general-regulation-non-authorised-persons/ accessed 28th April 2025
3. Julia Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 234
4. Solicitors Regulation Authority, Rajeeve Sivapathasunderam (20 January 2025) https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/7172669/ accessed 30th April