*/
McKenzie Friends should not be allowed to charge for their services, senior judges have proposed, in a shake-up to rules on non-lawyers who help litigants.
The Judicial Executive Board (JEB) issued a consultation on changing the guidance that has been in place since 2010, due to concern over the rise in the number of litigants in person (LiPs) and McKenzie Friends since the cuts introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
Reforming the courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends, published in February, followed a judicial working group chaired by Mrs Justice Asplin, which was set up to examine the issues and make recommendations for reform.
It proposes a prohibition on fee recovery by paid McKenzie Friends in line with the practice adopted in Scotland, where lay supporters may only provide assistance, representation or the conduct of litigation if they are not in direct or indirect receipt of remuneration.
The paper asks whether the term ‘McKenzie Friends’, which stems from a 1970s case, should be updated to something more readily understood, such as ‘court supporter’.
It also moots replacing the existing Practice Guidance with formal rules of court and a Code of Conduct that McKenzie Friends should be required to comply with to ensure that, as with legal representatives, they acknowledge a duty to the court, and a duty of confidentiality in relation to the litigation.
The JEB also recommends production of a plain language guide for LiPs and McKenzie Friends, and asks whether it should be drafted by a non-judicial body with expertise in drafting court user materials.
Welcoming the proposals, the Chairman of the Bar, Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, said: ‘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.’
She said: ‘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.’
Doerries suggested: ‘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.
‘Barristers and solicitors are qualified, regulated and insured, but McKenzie Friends tick none of these boxes.’
Comments can be submitted by 19 May 2016 to mckenzie.friends@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk.
McKenzie Friends should not be allowed to charge for their services, senior judges have proposed, in a shake-up to rules on non-lawyers who help litigants.
The Judicial Executive Board (JEB) issued a consultation on changing the guidance that has been in place since 2010, due to concern over the rise in the number of litigants in person (LiPs) and McKenzie Friends since the cuts introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
Reforming the courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends, published in February, followed a judicial working group chaired by Mrs Justice Asplin, which was set up to examine the issues and make recommendations for reform.
It proposes a prohibition on fee recovery by paid McKenzie Friends in line with the practice adopted in Scotland, where lay supporters may only provide assistance, representation or the conduct of litigation if they are not in direct or indirect receipt of remuneration.
The paper asks whether the term ‘McKenzie Friends’, which stems from a 1970s case, should be updated to something more readily understood, such as ‘court supporter’.
It also moots replacing the existing Practice Guidance with formal rules of court and a Code of Conduct that McKenzie Friends should be required to comply with to ensure that, as with legal representatives, they acknowledge a duty to the court, and a duty of confidentiality in relation to the litigation.
The JEB also recommends production of a plain language guide for LiPs and McKenzie Friends, and asks whether it should be drafted by a non-judicial body with expertise in drafting court user materials.
Welcoming the proposals, the Chairman of the Bar, Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, said: ‘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.’
She said: ‘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.’
Doerries suggested: ‘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.
‘Barristers and solicitors are qualified, regulated and insured, but McKenzie Friends tick none of these boxes.’
Comments can be submitted by 19 May 2016 to mckenzie.friends@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk.
Politically neutral, yet loud and clear – why standing on the sidelines is not an option
With the property market witnessing significant changes since the beginning of the pandemic, Fleet Street Wealth’s Managing Director Julian Morgan considers the future of the home, the second home and the office
In partnership with the Bar Council, LexisNexis is offering up to 60% off its extensive webinar offering.
Chambers is expanding its team.
Making a move from the Bar to a career in governance: Maria Brookes outlines three good reasons to switch and how to do it
Inés Rivera explains how speech recognition can help barristers create accurate documentation faster
The barrister-author talks to Chris Henley QC about the parallels between farming and farmers, and the law and barristers, and the dilemmas of combining young children with continued practice at the Bar
Permitting vulnerable people to be heard is a difficult role, but I have so much joy from it. Mary Prior QC shares life lessons with Aadhithya Anbahan
If the Bar is complacent on the issue of race, then we will perpetuate the same racial inequities that continue to pervade our society, writes Professor Leslie Thomas QC
Politically neutral, yet loud and clear why standing on the sidelines is not an option
Narita Bahra QC and Don Ramble take a look at the new disclosure sections on the Digital Case System, together with the latest versions of the AGs Disclosure Guidelines and CPIA Code of Practice
