*/
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.
As we look ahead to Justice Week 2022, the sustainability of the Criminal Bar remains a critical issue for the government to address
Opportunity for female sopranos/contraltos in secondary education, or who have recently finished secondary education but have not yet begun tertiary education. Eligibility includes children of members of the Bar
Fear of the collection and test process is a common factor among clients, especially among vulnerable adults in complex family law cases. Cansford Laboratories shares some tips to help the testing process run as smoothly as possible
Casey Randall explains how complex relationship DNA tests can best be used – and interpreted – by counsel
Casey Randall, Head of DNA at AlphaBiolabs, explores what barristers need to know about DNA testing for immigration, including when a client might wish to submit DNA evidence, and which relationship tests are best for immigration applications
Julian Morgan reminds barristers of the top five areas to consider before 5 April
Barristers are particularly at risk of burnout because of the nature of our work and our approach to it but it doesnt have to be this way. Jade Bucklow explores how culture, work and lifestyle changes can rejuvinate our mental health...
The case ofR v Brecanihas complicated matters for defence lawyers. Emma Fielding talks to gang culture expert, Dr Simon Harding about County Lines, exploitation and modern slavery
If the Bar cannot define and prohibit bullying behaviour, what chance do we have of persuading the Judiciary to do so? Darren Howe QC and Professor Jo Delahunty QC's call to action on codification plus suggested strategies for dealing with bullying from the Bar and Bench
The Schools Consent Project (SCP) is educating tens of thousands of teenagers about the law around consent to challenge and change what is now endemic behaviour. Here, its founder, barrister Kate Parker talks to Chris Henley QC about SCPs work and its association with Jodie Comers West End playPrima Facie, in which she plays a criminal barrister who is sexually assaulted
Professionally embarrassed? The circumstances in which criminal barristers may return instructions to appear at trial have become clearer following the Court of Appeal judgment inR v Daniels By Abigail Bright
