• About
  • Child Arrangements after Separation – Scotland
  • Divorce in Scotland
  • Financial Arrangements in Divorce – Scotland
  • The Family Law A to Z: A reference book for litigants & students

Quantum Valeat

~ A personal view on family law

Quantum Valeat

Category Archives: mckenzie friends

Professional McKenzie Friends

15 Tuesday Mar 2016

Posted by quantumvaleat in Court, court hearings, Court Procedure, family law, Law, lay reperesntation, lay representitives, Litigants-In-Person, mckenzie friends, self-representation, Uncategorized

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

Court Proceedings, divorce, Family Law, lay advisers, mckenzie friends, self-representation

 

Going to Court is a nerve-wracking, stressful and emotional experience. Going to Court alone, with no support or help either with the preparation or someone to quietly support and advise you during the hearings amplifies that stress 10-fold. McKenzie Friends, on the whole, do an excellent job in supporting and advising Litigants in Person and the good ones tend to go unheralded and the  few rogue ones are held up as shining examples of why McKenzie Friends are detrimental to Litigants. More and more litigants are having to self-represent,and I have seen an increase in Litigants who don’t have English as a first language calling the advice line I work for – around of one third of all calls to the helpline are from those who have English as a second or third language.

The Judiciary recently launched a Consultation  called “Reforming the courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends” and is open until 31st May 2016.   The Consultation asks 10 questions and makes a number of suggestions.

A Register of McKenzie Friends.

In his recent blog, Michael Robinson (Custody Minefield) suggests that McKenzie Friends  sign up to the Professional Paralegal Register and therefore creating a register of McKenzie Friends. McKenzie Friends are not Paralegals, and not all Paralegals engage in MF work, the two are separate and should be kept separate, otherwise there may be confusion for clients/litigants.

It iIs my understanding that  the Institute of Paralegals intend to run a future project for the IoP to become the recognised body for McKenzie Friends . This is actually good news as it means that McKenzie Friends  would have practicing certificates, be graded according to the number of years experience and any relevant qualifications they may have,  to abide by a Code of Conduct as set by the IoP and have access to a wealth of support and experience from the IoP and its members.  I would hope the IoP make a clear distinction between Professional Paralegals and McKenzie Friends.

However, I would prefer to see a specific register for  McKenzie Friends – one that details areas of expertise, lists experience, relevant legal qualifications, fees, and so on.  Such a register would enable Litigants to source the most appropriate McKenzie Friend for them and their case; knowing that the information is up-to-date and the McKenzie Friend is a member of a professional body so that should there be any issues about the service received, a formal complaint can be raised with the IoP.   To be clear, the IoP isn’t a regulatory body, but a professional membership body and as such  do not have any powers to compel action to be taken or to award compensation. They can, however, discipline members of the Institute and advise clients on how to complain and to whom. . Perhaps, in time, the IoP or indeed the National Association of Licensed Paralegals (NALP) may become a regulatory body.  The proposed Code of Conduct would also be resolved by McKenzie Friends being able to join a recognised professional body, as the IoP already have an extensive Code of Conduct for Paralegals, and this could for the basis for an adaptation specifically for McKenzie Friends.

For those wishing to be known as Professional McKenzie Friends – ie fee-charging perhaps there is scope for Central Law Training or National Association of Licensed Paralegals to offer relevant training courses and qualifications tailored specifically for McKenzie Friends. CLT and NALP already offer a wide range of Paralegal Qualifications that are excellent and provide the successful student with a professional legal qualification that is widely recognised.  A similar qualification for McKenzie Friends would provide them with a higher level of professionalism that is currently not available for them.

All this would be voluntary, but if McKenzie Friends are going to be Professional McKenzie Friends, then lets ensure that they have access to the best possible resources/training/membership bodies/ possible – it protects both the McKenzie Friend  and the litigant.

A Handbook for McKenzie Friends and Litigants;

This is an excellent idea – a well-written Plain English guide for both Litigants and McKenzie Friends, especially the occasional McKenzie Friends , or the family friend who attends court to offer moral support.  The Family Law A to Z provides an excellent “dictionary” of legal terms and definitions, as well as being an essential reference guide., and in the absence of any Handbook, the A to Z is the next best thing.   Natasha Phillips has written in more details about the proposed Handbook here.

To Charge Fees or Not?

I don’t know a single McKenzie Friend who could afford to spend the required amount of time with each litigant, advising, helping with court preparation, attending whole days in Court etc without being able to charge a modest fee for their time and expertise.  To banish fee-charging McKenzie Friends would be a disaster for Litigants, especially those who have no other source of support or advice to rely on. What about those Litigants who don’t have English as a first language, or have dyslexia, or struggle generally with the archaic legal terminology; the Litigants who have been victims of Domestic Abuse, or false allegations, or who are so overwhelmed by the whole proceedings that they are little more than a crumpled mess on the floor? How on earth does banishing fee-charging Mfs help them? Those that fall into these categories would find the court process very difficult to navigate, take up far more court time than they would with the assistance of a Professional MF.   If travel and another associated costs are also to be removed as a result of this consultation, then quite simply, the number of McKenzie Friends being able to provide that vital court-day support and assistance would plummet, leaving litigants alone, vulnerable and struggling during the court process.

This whole section of the Consolation reads to me as not about protecting Litigants but about protectionism for solicitors; and seeking the wholescale removal of fee-charging  McKenzie Friends from courts.

This Town Ain’t Big Enough for the Both of Us.

Yes it is. There is a need for the services solicitors and barristers offer and provide, but there is also an increasing need for the vital services professional McKenzie Friends offer and provide.  Along with LASPO, the number of law firms has fallen, opening up new opportunities for Paralegal firms and fee-charging McKenzie Friends. The vast majority of those who use MF services (or Paralegal firms) do so because they simply can’t afford the high rates that solicitors charge, so it’s not as if  McKenzie Friends take work away from solicitors. I would argue that an experienced, knowledge McKenzie Friend assisting a Litigant actually helps the solicitor acting for the other side and can help prevent lengthy delays in the litigant dealing with and returning communications.

What’s In a Name?

The consultation also proposes to do away with the term McKenzie Friend and to replace it with “Court Supporter”.  I feel that Court Support is misleading – the  McKenzie Friend isn’t there to support the Court, but to support the Litigant.  In Scotland, McKenzie Friends are known as “Lay Advisers”, and while this is a better option, it doesn’t reflect the experience and any legal qualifications the Lay Adviser/MF may have.  If fee-charging McKenzie Friends are to become a profession in their own right by (for example) becoming a member of a professional body, being listed on a register of Professional McKenzie Friends, taking specific qualifications that I’ve outlined above, then this needs to be adequately reflected in the term used to describe them. Natasha Phillips has proposed Lay Lawyers – I like this a lot. I would also propose that non-fee-charging McKenzie Friends  ie, a friend who attends court with a litigant for moral support be known as a Litigant Supporter. These two different terms would then very clearly differentiate between fee-charging professionals McKenzie Friends and those that are there purely to offer support on the day.

 

This consultation appears to have an agenda – and it’s not one that is supportive of litigants or McKenzie Friends, but one that appears to seeks to remove the ability for McKenzie Friends to charge not just hourly fees but also expenses for attending court with a litigant; and therefore removing McKenzie Friends  completely. It is not in the interests of justice to do this, who would actually benefit from the wholesale removal of McKenzie Friends ? Certainly not the vulnerable litigants.  With the recent announcement of 86 courts to close, LASPO, the number of solicitor firms falling, court fees to rise alter this year (£550 just for a divorce application!), access to justice is slowly and surely being eroded away from the common man/woman. Now more than ever,  there is a need for professional McKenzie Friends /Lay Lawyers to assist litigants and therefore ensure that access to justice is continued and achievable.

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
  • Pocket
  • Share on Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

What Are Your Options if You Can’t Afford a Solicitor?

21 Thursday Jan 2016

Posted by quantumvaleat in Divorce, family law, lay representitives, Litigants-In-Person, mckenzie friends, self-representation, Solicitors

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Court Hearings, divorce, Family Law, Legal Aid

 

There are a number of alternative options:

Represent yourself entirely. Wikivorce is the best free resource for litigants in person in family proceedings. The only costs you would incur are your own travel/stationery/other associated costs and court fees. You would do all the work, and have to address the court yourself. You can always take a McKenzie Friend with you to provide support, take notes and quietly give advice during the court proceedings.

Represent yourself, and use a solicitor on an as and when basis for legal advice (known as unbundling). Although you would be doing the bulk of the work yourself, you would still have the back-up of legal advice from a solicitor, and be able to keep a tight reign on the costs.

Represent yourself, do the work, and instruct a direct access barrister to represent you at hearings and speak on your behalf at court hearings – especially a Final Hearing.

If your spouse is a high earner, then it may be possible for you to apply to court for a Legal Services Order, which would provide you with assistance in paying your legal costs. More information can be found here – Legal Services Orders

This post on Wikivorce has a wealth of very useful guides/articles/document templates that LiPs may find useful –Useful Resources for Litigants in Person

Over the next few months, I will be focusing on writing and sharing articles aimed at those who are unable to afford a solicitor and who have no option but to represent themselves in family litigation.

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
  • Pocket
  • Share on Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

New Rules for Lay Representation for Sheriff Courts

15 Friday Mar 2013

Posted by quantumvaleat in court hearings, lay reperesntation, lay representitives, mckenzie friends, Scots Family Law, self-representation

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

Court Hearings, Court Proceedings, lay representitives, mckenzie friends, Scots Family Law, self-representation

New rules which will allow lay representatives to speak on behalf of party litigants in Sheriff Courts will come into force on 4th April 2013.  A lay representative is known in England/Wales as a McKenzie Friend, and a party litigant is known as a Litigant in Person.

The new rules will enable a Sheriff , on the request of the party litigant, to permit a named individual (who must be unpaid) to appear at a specified hearing for the sole purpose of making an oral submission on behalf of the party litigant at that hearing.

To request such a hearing, a request should be made orally on the date of the first hearing at which the litigant wishes the individual to make oral submissions, be accompanied by a document signed by the person named.

The rules, which come into force on 4 April 2013, follow the report of a joint working group chaired by Lord Pentland, with members of both the Court of Session and Sheriff Court Rules Councils, which conducted a public consultation. They apply to each of the ordinary cause, summary application, summary cause and small claims processes in the sheriff court.

The sheriff may grant the request only if he or she is of the opinion that it would assist the sheriff’s consideration of the case to grant it, and may also of his or her own accord or on the motion of a party to the proceedings withdraw such permission.

This is progress, and good progress at that. Treatment of party litigants in the Sheriff Courts had previously been poor on numerous occasions; one party litigant I know who represented himself during a 2 year long residence battle, was treated with the utmost contempt by the Sheriffs.  Many of those who represent themselves do so because they aren’t entitled to Legal Aid (which isn’t being withdrawn for family cases in Scotland – the Scottish legal Aid Board is a separate entity from the Legal Services Commission which over-saw legal aid in England/Wales) and can not afford to pay the legal fees of a solicitor. There is often little help out there for party litigants, so these new rules are cautiously welcomed by myself – how they will work in practice remains to be seen.

Act of Sederunt (Sheriff Court Rules) (Lay Representation) 2013

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
  • Pocket
  • Share on Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Archives

Top Posts & Pages

  • Child Arrangements after Separation - Scotland
  • Financial Arrangements in Divorce - Scotland
  • What Are Your Options if You Can't Afford a Solicitor?

Categories

Blog Stats

  • 73,535 views

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,765 other followers

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.com

Search QV Blogposts

Recent Posts

  • Professional McKenzie Friends
  • List of 86 Courts To Close
  • The Fault in the No-Fault Divorce Bill
  • Proposed Amendments to Bundles (PD27A)
  • Changes to the Child Arrangements Programme
  • Children of the Revolution
  • Cui dono lepidum nouum libellum?
  • Update on investigation into faulty online form used in divorce proceedings.
  • What Are Your Options if You Can’t Afford a Solicitor?
  • House of Commons research briefing published on rise of LiPs in Civil and Famaily Cases

Archives

  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • August 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • May 2014
  • November 2013
  • June 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,765 other followers

Top Posts & Pages

  • Child Arrangements after Separation - Scotland
  • Financial Arrangements in Divorce - Scotland
  • What Are Your Options if You Can't Afford a Solicitor?

Categories

  • Ancillary Relief
  • Awards
  • books
  • Bundles
  • Cafcass
  • child abduction
  • child arrangements
  • children
  • Children 4 Justice
  • co-habitation
  • Communication
  • Court
  • court hearings
  • court outcomes
  • Court Procedure
  • disgraceful
  • Divorce
  • domestic violence
  • equal parenting
  • equal parenting rights
  • family law
  • fathers
  • Fathers 4 Justice
  • feminism
  • financial remedies
  • Gender
  • Gender-Neutral
  • health
  • helpline humour
  • Hobbits
  • humour
  • Law
  • lay reperesntation
  • lay representitives
  • Legal Aid
  • Litigants-In-Person
  • LW4SP
  • marriage
  • mckenzie friends
  • Mediation
  • men's health
  • parenting
  • politics
  • Research
  • same sex marriage
  • Scots Family Law
  • Scottish Politics
  • self-representation
  • Sheriff Courts
  • Solicitors
  • Supreme Court
  • Uncategorized
  • unmarried fathers

Blog Stats

  • 73,535 hits

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: