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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll