Skip to main content

No to a ban on fee charging McKenzie Friends

Ben McKenzie & friend (no relation to the pseudo-lawyers)

I appear to be in a state of perpetual shock and disbelief this week and the Legal Services Board have done nothing to help me out of that state.

Yesterday morning they responded to the Judicial Executive Board’s consultation on the approach courts should take to McKenzie Friends.

What is a McKenzie Friend? I can do no better than the definition given by RobinSpon-Smith of 1 Hare Court so I shan’t try:

“A McKenzie friend is somebody who accompanies a litigant in person to a court hearing for the purpose of assisting him in such matters as taking notes, helping to organise the documents, and quietly making suggestions – for example as to questions to put to a witness. Although usually a non-lawyer, the McKenzie friend should not be thought of as a species of lay advocate and has no right to address the court.”

Originally, a McKenzie Friend was literally a friend of a litigant in person who could assist him in court. Or, it might be somebody offering support on behalf of a charity. McKenzie Friends were never intended to become a way for profit to be made.

It's important to note that McKenzie Friends need no qualification, are not regulated and have no indemnity insurance should they make a mistake. There is no system that exists to ensure that a person acting as a paid McKenzie Friend understands the law to begin with much less keeps up to date with changes in law and procedure.

This is a problem because you as a consumer have absolutely no idea whether the person you hand over your money to has any idea what is going on or is actually able to give you the necessary guidance. I recall seeing a McKenzie Friend attempt to appear before Thames Magistrates’ Court in a criminal law case. It was immediately obvious that he was not a qualified lawyer despite his attempt to exercise rights of audience he did not possess. The District Judge quickly noticed the significant errors he made from the start and booted him out of court. He made a comment as he went that was telling – he told the DJ that “I appear in courts every day, nobody else has a problem with me speaking on behalf of my clients”.

Some years ago I came across a group of solicitors who had decided not to renew their practising certificates and operate as a firm of “law advisers” to people facing all sorts of legal problems. I asked why they would do that? The director told me that it was to cut overheads because as lay advisers they did not require insurance or the costs of being regulated. Nor could anybody step in and fine them (or even take over their business) if they made mistakes.

TheLSB takes the view that there is no need to do anything about paid McKenzieFriends. They point to the “significant change” that the justice system is going through – while they don’t say it I’d suggest that the most relevant significant change is the removal of legal aid from pretty much all civil law cases and its restriction in criminal law cases. They go on to talk about a survey that showed “… 64% of consumers with a legal problem do not seek independent assistance in dealing with it. In this context, any moves to restrict consumers’ choice should be targeted and based on evidence of detriment.”

For me the idea that people may be going to a completely untrained, unqualified, unregulated and uninsured person for legal advice with their problems is evidence enough of a high risk of detriment that may be caused. Let’s not forget that McKenzie v McKenzie (the case that gives us the name of McKenzie Friends) was a family law case as are many cases now where McKenzie Friends give assistance. Their clients are often fathers desperate to gain access to their children – the sort of desperate people who need proper, professional legal advice from a solicitor who is qualified, regulated and insured against errors.

As the LSB alludes, most of the McKenzie Friends firms on the internet advertise themselves as a direct alternative to solicitors. They point out that their fees are significantly lower than those charged by a solicitor but they make no mention of the limitations of their services or their lack of qualifications to be giving legal advice in the first place. If you look at the comments on this Gazette story you'll see a McKenzie Friend claiming that having no knowledge of family law is no barrier to practising it. To me it reads as somebody having insufficient knowledge to recognise his own limitations - somebody else points out a few of his misunderstandings in following comments (wasn't me).

Ask yourself this – when the government goes to court do you ever see the Secretary of State rocking up with a McKenzie Friend to help out? Of course you don’t. When did you last see a major business send along a director and an unqualified McKenzie Friend to deal with a case? The celebs who seek privacy injunctions never turn up by themselves with an unqualified adviser to steer them through court do they? And why do you think that might be? It’s not because McKenzie Friends offer a cost effective solution and all these people are too daft to see what a good deal it is – it’s because they want quality legal advice from a source they know they can trust, in other words a solicitor and/or a barrister.

McKenzie Friends have their place. Where somebody is genuinely assisting a friend or where a charity is providing support they can be invaluable. But when somebody is conducting a business you have to ask yourself why have they not managed to qualify as a solicitor if they have sufficient legal skills to resolve this problem? If they don’t have those skills, then why would I want to pay this person to advise me in court?

The reason McKenzie Friends are so popular is because solicitors cost too much money and, frankly most of them are hopeless at estimating costs (in my experience at least). The profession must start charging fixed fees – it’s not hard, I’ve been doing it for years and all it needs is a little thought to get your fees correct. Once people see that they can get a proper solicitor for a reasonable fee then paid McKenzie Friends will disappear.


  1. Re fixed fees - go to many German shopping or news websites, and ad banners will invite you to type in the value of your legal dispute, and you'll get an instant quote for the work. It's also a lot easier for punters to see what the law is.

  2. "But when somebody is conducting a business you have to ask yourself why have they not managed to qualify as a solicitor if they have sufficient legal skills to resolve this problem? If they don’t have those skills, then why would I want to pay this person to advise me in court?"

    Because there is the barrier to entry as a solicitor that is the training contract. And training contracts are very hard to come by, and even more so if you are 50-ish unable to forego income because of supporting a family and unable to move across the country because of family.

    I've supported people - free of charge and as a hobby and effectively - in family court, magistrates court, in pretrial for medical negligence, in contract disputes, in police stations, in property negotiations and in probate and tax affairs. And all without being "qualified" purely because of the restrictive practices of the Law Society.

    Sure, training contracts make a lot of sense for youngsters entering the profession early. they are of less obvious value and necessity for people with years of experience working alongside, and against, lawyers.

    Like you said "it's not hard, I've been doing it for years". I'd love to make a living out of it - but can't as not "qualified".

    1. My head feels a little fuzzy after reading this. Your comment is precisely why restictive practises are so important!

      The fact you treat the provision of legal advice as a hobby is very troubling. You are not qualified yet feel it's okay to advise people on how they conduct cases in court. Worse still you do this in situations where they are in a police station facing criminal charges. The fact you gained entry must indicate that you lied to the police about your status and told them that you are either a solicitor or an accredited rep (you say you are not qualified so I assume that means as a rep too).

      Training contracts make a lot of sense not only for youngsters but for people relying on the legal advice they are being given! With respect, you have no qualifications and have not been through any training. If you mess up there is no policy of insurance to recompense your client and no regulator to prevent you doing it again. You are required to undertake no going training and so cannot know whether the legal knowledge you have acquired is either correct or current.

      This may sound harsh, but you are a liability to the people you represent as part of your hobby!


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…