header-logo header-logo

16 June 2017
Issue: 7750 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Time to nip paid McKenzie Friends in court in the bud?

Paid McKenzie Friends in family law cases vary from ‘business opportunists’ through ‘good Samaritans’ to ‘family justice crusaders’ and ‘rogues’.

Research, commissioned by the Bar Council and carried out by the Universities of Cardiff and Bristol, found evidence of McKenzie Friends ‘whose active efforts to exercise rights of audience presented difficulties’, although others referred clients on to specialists where appropriate. It concluded that ‘there is enough that is concerning in relation to fee-charging McKenzie Friends to merit efforts to tackle the worst of the sector’.

About 100 fee-charging McKenzie Friends are operating in England and Wales. However, it is impossible to gauge the exact number. Moreover, the bulk of work is delivered outside the courtroom, with few McKenzie Friends seeking to represent their litigant in person clients in court.

Chairman of the Bar, Andrew Langdon QC, said: ‘It is particularly interesting that the courtroom—where the very concept of McKenzie Friends as ‘quiet supporters’ for a litigant was born—is not primarily where those who pay them are receiving their services today. In that sense, what we see in court represents the tip of the iceberg. The risks of McKenzie Friends being able to seek payment for representing their clients in court, despite being unqualified and offering no disciplinary process and no requirement to have insurance, are considerable and so vulnerable clients have little protection.

The research suggests that the number of paid McKenzie Friends seeking judges’ permission to represent clients in court at present is smaller than many feared, and one view is that it can and should be nipped in the bud without impacting on access to justice.’

Issue: 7750 / 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
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll