header-logo header-logo

03 March 2016
Issue: 7689 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No pay for McKenzie Friends

Legal profession welcomes ban on payment for controversial non-lawyers

Lawyers have welcomed proposals to ban McKenzie Friends from charging fees for their services.

The Judicial Executive Board (JEB) has proposed substantial reform for McKenzie Friends, non-lawyers who offer assistance or appear as advocates on behalf of litigants in person. The number of both litigants in person and McKenzie Friends has risen sharply in number in recent years, partly due to cutbacks in legal aid.

JEB proposes replacing existing guidance with rules of court, introducing a code of conduct requiring McKenzie Friends to acknowledge a duty to the court and a duty of confidentiality, and prohibiting them from charging fees.

It also hopes to provide further protection for litigants in person by requiring them to inform courts in advance that they intend to use a McKenzie Friend and providing information about the Friend.

Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, Chairman of the Bar, says: “McKenzie friends are unregulated, uninsured and mostly unqualified, and the Bar Council agrees that they should not be allowed to charge people for legal services.

“An unfortunate consequence of legal aid cuts is that paid McKenzie Friends, who are not regulated or insured and are rarely legally qualified, have been charging up to £90 an hour to represent people in court. We have already seen one McKenzie friend banned from court for intimidating witnesses and legal representatives, and another jailed for defrauding his clients.

“Unlike McKenzie Friends, barristers and solicitors are regulated and owe a duty to the court and in this way they serve the interests of justice and the public interest. Those who instruct a paid McKenzie Friend would be better off employing a junior barrister or solicitor. This is often more cost effective and will always represent better value for money.”

The proposals follow the recommendations of a judicial working group, chaired by Mrs Justice Asplin. JEB also intends to produce a plain language guide for litigants in person and McKenzie Friends.

Comments to the consultation, Reforming the courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends, should be submitted by 19 May to mckenzie.friends@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk.

Issue: 7689 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll