The Judicial Executive Board (JEB) has just published a consultation on McKenzie Friends which focuses on how the courts should approach them, and one of its proposals? To ban any kind of fee charging for McKenzie services.
This latest news will not sit well with lawyers who have been trying to break into the McKenzie sector by offering their services at a discounted price. The JEB’s proposal stems from Scotland’s own stance on McKenzie Friends, or lay advisers who help Litigants in Person (LIPs) when they are unable to afford conventional legal representation: Scotland currently does not allow McKenzie Friends to charge for their support.
This proposal will also be cause for concern for some lay advisers who currently do not charge for their assistance, but who rely on clients to cover their travel costs and perhaps also a meal if they are in court all day. We very much hope the guidelines once drafted, will make an exception for this as these McKenzie Friends are in the main helping out of generosity of spirit and a sense of civic duty.
Something else to think on is the language that’s currently being used to describe the assistance lay advisers give – the legal sector views this assistance as support rather than a service whereas legal representation is always referred to as a service, so we must also question whether this is fair and whether this language either explicitly or implicitly suggests lay advice is not worthy of remuneration.
The consultation paper, which includes a set of draft Civil Procedure Rules and further proposals, sets out the current position in law and subsequent developments. It asks for feedback on the following:
- Terminology: the paper asks whether the term McKenzie Friends should be updated to something that is easier to understand, like ‘Court Supporter’.
- Developing rules of court: should a Practice Guidance be replaced with formal rules of court?
- Providing notice: should there be reforms to help LiPs understand what roles McKenzie Friends can play and any limitations on what they can do?
- Code of Conduct: should there be a universal Code of Conduct for McKenzie Friends?
- Plain language: the JEB proposes a plain language guide for both LiPs and McKenzie Friends and;
- Prohibition on fee recovery: the JEB suggests there should be a prohibition on fee recovery by paid McKenzie Friends. We are told, “The JEB’s intention is to protect the public interest and vulnerable litigants from unregulated and uninsured individuals seeking to carry out reserved legal activities. This approach is also in line with Parliament’s intention that rights of audience (the ability to appear and present a case in court) and to conduct litigation should be strictly regulated.”
The JEB would like to hear from you if you have any thoughts on the above. Submissions will need to be sent in by 19 May 2016 and can be emailed to mckenzie.friends@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk.
A very big thank you to Dana for alerting us to this consultation.
Researching Reform 
McKenzie friends should automatically have a right of audience in the courts, should not charge fees but should have their reasonable expenses reimbursed by their clients..
LikeLike
Hopefully there will be a ban on fees and those lawyers and others involved will provide service pro bono.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Pingback: Our Submission To The McKenzie Friend Consultation | Researching Reform
I have been reading up on the children’s act with the evidence of a child’s lawyer who wrote all evidence is irrelevant we are in family courts not criminal courts. it is very clear that the law states it is a criminal offence to abuse a child physically mentally or emotional and yet thousands of kids are taken into care with no charges against the families and yet the law is clear on this issue of emotional abuse I believe that the emotional abuse was bought in as a law because kids in care are a multibillion pound industry creating millions of jobs and from the help line i know it is not so much the police who bring charges it is the social workers who have the powers, at the last conference an ex police officer of 30 years said we have to do as we are told by the S/W
http://www.cypnow.co.uk/cyp/news/1144640/emotional-abuse-children-criminal-offence.
So why does the law clearly state it is a criminal offence to abuse a child and yet their are no criminal charges bought against the families.
There are thousands of abused victims from care who are going unheard with the on going debates and talks over the next god knows how many years so is the law yet again an ASS a law for the rich and a law for the poor and should families be found guilty of abuse to a child then so should all (In a child’s best interest) The law needs to be changed with the family courts opened so that evidence can be produced, and the children’s lawyers who are all awarded to a child by the courts should be sacked as they do nothing for a child, as for Cafcass they should also be fired they are so corrupt, but then again it all boils down to money money money and more money, and don’t think for one minuet that the House of Lords MPs or Ministers will listen to truth as I am sure many of them are all for the money money money and sod the kids screaming to be heard they are only the plebs and as I have said before how many of rich have had their kids stolen on allegations, and lets take the case of Cameron who left his kid alone in the pub and then look at the MaCannes who left 3 kids alone so how come they did not lose their kids and it would not have been on allegations only, to leave kids so young alone had they been plebs they would have lost all but then one can read how Cameron has always supported the MaCannes to find the missing child again it all comes back to keep it in the family, and lets forget the 10.000 kids who run away from being abused in the care system, Cameron will not even allow the families of kids in care to write a story for them so that the kids can grow up knowing they were loved and missed and yet prisoner’s have the rights, god help parliament if I ever get the chance to address them all then they will know what truth is. Until then we can only support Natasha and the McKenzie friends to help bring change and justice and to help the children who have for centuries been screaming to be heard.
LikeLike
Maggie, 10,000 kids go missing from the care system every year! Some do run away. Some just go missing! Babies have gone missing and they can’t run! Wonder how many would go missing if they were “placed” at home? If the current trend continues, (decrease of 12%, 2015) we will not find out! Whilst it is known that kids in care who go missing are disproportionately represented against the population, it would be interesting to know the statistics of those who have gone missing from those placed within their own homes in the same period. Anyone know?? That would give an indication of risk!
LikeLike