header-logo header-logo

No pay for McKenzie Friends

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

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

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll