Judges stop short of banning McKenzie Friends despite remaining “deeply concerned” about rising usage

Judges have been unable to agree on whether to ban fee-charging ‘McKenzie Friends’ despite admitting concerns and have asked the government to decide instead.

McKenzie Friends are people without legal qualifications who assist litigants in person (people representing themselves who are usually unable to afford a lawyer) in court by giving advice and prompts. Traditionally, McKenzie Friends knew the litigant, but the number of ‘professional’ McKenzie Friends who charge fees for their services (albeit much lower than those of a solicitor) has grown in recent years.

The Judicial Executive Board was asked to respond to a 2016 consultation on whether these non-lawyers should be banned, but as Legal Futures reports, it felt unable to make such a recommendation despite being “deeply concerned about the proliferation of McKenzie Friends who in effect provide professional services for reward when they are unqualified, unregulated, uninsured and not subject to the same professional obligations and duties… as are professional lawyers.”

In its response, published earlier this week, the JEB said that the rising number of litigants in person using McKenzie Friends has coincided with cuts to legal aid introduced by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO).

The JEB stated: “The growth in reliance on McKenzie Friends, and particularly fee-charging ones, should be considered in the context of the impact of those changes [introduced by LASPO]. It is for the government to consider appropriate steps to be taken to enable litigants in person to secure effective access to legal assistance, legal advice and, where necessary, representation.”