Six categories of Cayman-law work had no exemption in December. All six are now covered — back to January 1

On June 29, 2026 the Cabinet of the Cayman Islands Government widened the exemptions to the offence of practising Cayman Islands law, and deemed the change to have been in force since January 1, 2026. Six categories of work that had no exemption at all now have one. If you practise Cayman Islands law from outside the Cayman Islands, or supervise people who do, this is what changed and where your own position now sits.

Background

In late 2025, section 24 of the Legal Services Act 2020, which falls under Part 3 of that Act, stated as follows:

24. (1) Except as provided by this Act, a person shall not practise Cayman Islands law in the Islands or in another jurisdiction.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of one hundred thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of two years, or to both.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person practises Cayman Islands law if, for or in expectation of gain or reward, the person provides legal services in respect of Cayman Islands law or in the Islands.

(4) A person practises Cayman Islands law if the person holds himself or herself as qualified to provide legal services in respect of Cayman Islands law or in the Islands for gain or reward.

Section 24(5) listed exemptions, running from (a) to (k).

Based on the Legal Services Act, 2020 (Commencement Order), 2025, made in the Cabinet on November 13, 2025, the above sections came into force on January 1, 2026.

The Act stated that, from January 1, 2026, practising Cayman Islands law — in the Cayman Islands or in any other jurisdiction — was reserved to those properly admitted and certificated. Contravening it was an offence carrying a fine of $100,000, or imprisonment for two years, or both.

Notwithstanding the commencement date, the Legal Services (Savings and Transitional) Regulations, 2025 (SL 48 of 2025), made in Cabinet on November 13, 2025, provided a transitional period from January 1, 2026 to June 30, 2026, giving overseas persons time to register as Cayman attorneys. Under regulation 2(e), to rely on it you had to have been practising Cayman Islands law through a firm or an affiliate before January 1, 2026, you had to pay the admission and practising-certificate fees on or before February 15, 2026, and you had to apply for admission before the period ran out. However, there appeared to be some drafting gaps.

The gaps

One of the drafting gaps was that, although the Cabinet suspended section 24(3) — the limb of the offence that catches providing legal services — for six months, by the Legal Services (Savings and Transitional) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025 (SL 77 of 2025) made on December 30, 2025, the Cabinet appeared to have left section 24(4) untouched. That is the limb that catches holding yourself out as qualified in Cayman Islands law for reward. On the face of the instruments, that limb was live throughout the transitional period from January 1, 2026 to June 30, 2026.

In addition, the exemptions listed under section 24(5) did not include the following:

** Support, research and paralegal staff of firms and their overseas offices

** Non-residents providing legal services from inside the Cayman Islands

** Anyone acting in Privy Council proceedings

** Lawyers conducting proceedings abroad that involve a question of Cayman Islands law

** Attorneys already admitted but still awaiting a practising certificate

** Self-employed barristers who are not King’s Counsel

Fast forward to the June 29 Order

SL 32 of 2026, made in Cabinet on June 29, 2026, and in force from January 1, 2026, included nine amendments to section 24(5). It added six entirely new exemption paragraphs, (l) to (q) — and they answer the six December 2025 gaps almost one for one. These were as follows:

(l) provides support or clerical or administrative assistance, conducts research, prepares or reviews documents or provides other incidental support, including assistance falling within the definition of “legal services” under section 2, under the supervision and direction of a law firm or an affiliate of a law firm, if such person does not hold himself or herself as qualified to practise Cayman Islands law and does not independently provide any other legal services;

(m) is not legally resident or ordinarily resident in the Islands, but is present in the Islands and provides legal services or practises in or from within the Islands the law of another jurisdiction;

(n) acts in relation to proceedings before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and, if such a person acts on behalf of a party, the law firm or an affiliate retains overall responsibility for the conduct of the proceedings;

(o) conducts proceedings in another jurisdiction which includes or involves a question of Cayman Islands law;

(p) has been granted admission pursuant to an application made under section 34(1) or 35(1), but the Council has not made a determination on issuing a practising certificate under section 50(1), where the applicant has made, or intends to make, an application for a practising certificate; or

(q) being a self-employed barrister other than a King’s Counsel, or equivalent, and practising as such in any court of a jurisdiction referred to in section 32(3), is instructed by a law firm or an affiliate to assist the law firm or affiliate to provide advice on Cayman Islands law or the preparation or review of a document where the law firm or affiliate retains overall responsibility for conduct of any matter, except that this provision shall not permit attendance or appearance in a court, tribunal, or inquiry hearing in the Islands without the person having been granted the relevant permission pursuant to an application made under section 35(1).

It is noted that paragraph (p) — admitted, awaiting a certificate — solved an immediate problem for an identifiable group, namely hundreds of persons who applied for admission to the Cayman Islands bar between January 1, 2026 and June 30, 2026, some of whom may not have been issued a Cayman Islands legal practising certificate by the deadline.

Regarding paragraph (l), this is particularly important for anyone running an offshore team. It exempts a person who conducts research, or prepares or reviews documents, under the supervision and direction of a law firm or an affiliate — expressly “including assistance falling within the definition of ‘legal services’ under section 2” (section 2 defines legal services to include giving legal advice or assistance). Before June 29, 2026, there was no such exemption anywhere in the Act. There now is, it is permanent, and it applies to the six months before it was written. As a matter of law, that tier of work may sit permanently in an overseas office under a Cayman firm’s supervision. Nothing in the Act requires it to be performed in the Cayman Islands, or offered in the Cayman Islands first.

In addition to the foregoing, the following changes were noted: the requirement that a firm finalise an overseas-drafted document is gone; the carve-out for evidence and correspondence is gone; obtaining evidence became obtaining or preparing it; Queen’s Counsel became King’s Counsel and gained the power to review as well as advise.

Further, SL 32 of 2026 replaced the opening formula for exemptions. Where section 24(5) previously said a person “is not to be taken as practising”, it now says a person “does not practise”. A deeming provision became a statement of fact.

Some things cut the other way

To be fair, not all provisions were in favour of overseas persons.

Under the Legal Services (Fees) Regulations, 2025, admission plus a practising certificate costs $17,500 for a non-Caymanian practising Cayman law abroad, against $4,000 for a Caymanian doing the same work. This fee structure is deliberately protective of Caymanians.

The third instrument made on June 29, 2026, SL 31 of 2026, changes the obligation on firms to advertise affiliate roles to Caymanian attorneys. It imposes a new duty at the senior end. Unlike the other two instruments made that day, it contains no commencement provision at all, and so does not reach back. There is a respectable reason for that: backdating a duty would have placed firms retrospectively in breach for appointments already made.

It is also worth noting what SL 31 does at the other end. The trigger moved from “less than six years” post-qualification experience to “at least five years”. Senior affiliate roles come within the internal-advertising duty — but roles below five years’ experience, the early-career postings, fall outside it altogether.

Taking a step back and looking at governance

From a governance standpoint, when Cabinet backdated the exemptions, this had the potential to relieve possible liability which could have arisen during the transition period from January 1, 2026 to June 30, 2026.

Three instruments were made on June 29, 2026. Two were given retrospective effect: SL 32 of 2026, the exemptions to the criminal offence, and SL 30 of 2026, the order adding Bermuda as a qualifying jurisdiction for admission. Both relieve persons working overseas. The third, SL 31 of 2026, concerning what firms owe Caymanian attorneys, operates from its own date forward.

Looking at what the Act required of Cabinet for each of the three instruments made that day, the following is noted:

• Admission qualifications (SL 30 of 2026, the Bermuda order): “upon the recommendation of the Council”.
• Professional-development regulations (SL 31 of 2026, the recruitment rule): “after consultation with the Council”.
• Section 24(6) — the exemptions to the criminal offence (SL 32 of 2026): “The Cabinet may by Order amend subsection (5).” There was no requirement to obtain input from the profession’s regulator — and it is the one that rewrote the offence.

Cabinet was entitled to act alone. However, the Act attaches a procedural safeguard to each of its lesser powers, yet there was no safeguard at all to the stronger power that set the reach of a criminal offence.

Nothing went to Parliament, because nothing had to. In addition, the instruments do not record who asked for these amendments, and no explanatory material was published with them.

Note

If I have misread any of the legislative changes, I would genuinely like to know, and I will publish the correction. This is an area where the people best placed to spot an error are the people it affects.

Sources

See https://legislation.gov.ky/cms/legislation/current.html