Litigants in Person have long had a right to assistance in court from a layperson, known as a McKenzie Friend, and this has traditionally been done by a family member, friend, or volunteer. However in
Litigants in Person have long had a right to assistance in court from a layperson, known as a McKenzie Friend, and this has traditionally been done by a family member, friend, or volunteer. However in recent years there has been a rise in full- or part-time McKenzie Friends offering their services on a paid-for basis, which has led to some discussion about the risks and benefits of such a system and whether they should be regulated.
Conducting litigation and the exercise of a right of audience in court are 'reserved legal activities' that can only be performed by the litigant or lawyers regulated under the Legal Services Act 2007. Such lawyers, predominantly solicitors and barristers, must be qualified and must have professional indemnity insurance. This increases the cost of services, often out of the range of many would-be litigants, particularly since the recent cuts to legal aid. As a result, litigants sometimes rely on paid McKenzie Friends (who can be seen as a low-cost alternative to solicitors) in areas such as family and employment law, where individuals deal with particularly important areas of their lives. While McKenzie Friends traditionally only assisted litigants in court (they do not automatically have a right of audience, but the judge may allow a McKenzie Friend to address the court), some are increasingly offering continuing support through the litigation process.
However, there are risks attached to the use of unregulated assistance in court. An April 2014 report from the Legal Services Consumer Panel noted that, as McKenzie Friends are currently unregulated, there is little protection for litigants who are provided with poor advice or representation. There have also been some concerns that such McKenzie Friends may have their own agenda that they are keen to pursue ahead of their clients' interests. Anecdotally, it would appear that many McKenzie Friends are associated with charities supporting the rights of fathers and are fathers themselves with a negative experience of family court proceedings after separation from their partners.
Amongst other recommendations, the Panel suggested that self-regulation of McKenzie Friends may improve the recognition of their work and increase their legitimacy. The Panel did not go as far as suggesting external regulation, as this may impede their entry to the market and increase costs out of the reach of their current consumer base. Since the report was published, the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends has been formed and apparently represents about half of the professional McKenzie Friends operating. The Society requires its members to comply with its Code of Conduct and the court practice guidance on McKenzie Friends, as well as providing a complaints and disciplinary procedure.
As membership of the Society is voluntary, it will not be able to provide the same protection as the statutory professional regulators. However, this may well be a welcome step towards improving the reputation and recognition of McKenzie Friends while providing some form of protection for Litigants in Person.
Conducting litigation and the exercise of a right of audience in court are 'reserved legal activities' that can only be performed by the litigant or lawyers regulated under the Legal Services Act 2007. Such lawyers, predominantly solicitors and barristers, must be qualified and must have professional indemnity insurance. This increases the cost of services, often out of the range of many would-be litigants, particularly since the recent cuts to legal aid. As a result, litigants sometimes rely on paid McKenzie Friends (who can be seen as a low-cost alternative to solicitors) in areas such as family and employment law, where individuals deal with particularly important areas of their lives. While McKenzie Friends traditionally only assisted litigants in court (they do not automatically have a right of audience, but the judge may allow a McKenzie Friend to address the court), some are increasingly offering continuing support through the litigation process.
However, there are risks attached to the use of unregulated assistance in court. An April 2014 report from the Legal Services Consumer Panel noted that, as McKenzie Friends are currently unregulated, there is little protection for litigants who are provided with poor advice or representation. There have also been some concerns that such McKenzie Friends may have their own agenda that they are keen to pursue ahead of their clients' interests. Anecdotally, it would appear that many McKenzie Friends are associated with charities supporting the rights of fathers and are fathers themselves with a negative experience of family court proceedings after separation from their partners.
Amongst other recommendations, the Panel suggested that self-regulation of McKenzie Friends may improve the recognition of their work and increase their legitimacy. The Panel did not go as far as suggesting external regulation, as this may impede their entry to the market and increase costs out of the reach of their current consumer base. Since the report was published, the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends has been formed and apparently represents about half of the professional McKenzie Friends operating. The Society requires its members to comply with its Code of Conduct and the court practice guidance on McKenzie Friends, as well as providing a complaints and disciplinary procedure.
As membership of the Society is voluntary, it will not be able to provide the same protection as the statutory professional regulators. However, this may well be a welcome step towards improving the reputation and recognition of McKenzie Friends while providing some form of protection for Litigants in Person.