McKenzie friends: call for code of conduct

Topics: Regulation and compliance,Courts business

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (12)
  • Save

Parties in the increasingly urgent debate about McKenzie friends have called for a mandatory code of conduct, amid mounting concerns about the behaviour of ‘practitioners’.

A former nightclub bouncer was last year barred from acting as a McKenzie friend after calling an opposition lawyer a ‘lying slag’. In another case, a High Court judgment admonished a McKenzie friend for pouring ‘more fuel on the flames’ in a defamation case.


Ray Barry, chair of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, said that although McKenzie friends should not be judged by the actions of a few, adherence to a code of conduct should be mandatory for all those who charge fees.

The society now has 21 members who have agreed to comply with a code which was recommended by the judiciary in 2011. The society believes that this code should be imposed on all paid McKenzie friends.

Barry told the Gazette: ‘Many courts now require McKenzie friends to complete a form prior to a hearing. That form could ask whether the McKenzie friend is fee-charging or not. If yes, the McKenzie friend should be expected to be familiar with and required to comply with the code.

‘For the non-fee charging McKenzie friends the form should simply inform them that they can quietly advise the litigant but also that they may not address the court.’

HM Judiciary is in the process of completing a keenly awaited review of McKenzie friends. A previous recommendation for a code of conduct was not implemented by the government. A spokesperson for the judiciary said that a consultation on McKenzie friends is under consideration and is expected to be published shortly.

The Gazette understands that the report could be a deciding factor in whether the government legislates to ban the provision of unqualified assistance as a business. However, the HM Judiciary report will look only at those who charge for their services.

Readers' comments (12)

  • Here's a radical idea; what about requiring them to have a law degree, undertake a professional training course, have PII and be subject to regulation and if necessary struck off?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Couldn't have put it better. When will the regulators / MOJ anyone else who cares etc realise that this race to the bottom will end in disaster?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So, if paid, a Code of Conduct, but if not, none.

    And the definition of "paid" is? A "fee" is what precisely?

    The Courts will be bogged down with disputes on this of luck to them, they'll need it. They'll certainly find dealing with the public direct less pleasant than dealing with solicitors, who previously took the flak.....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • You shall not stand in the Court foyer ready to knock another McKenzie Friend on the head for work (as Solicitors used to do in the latter 1770's when the re was such a 'profession').

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Code of Conduct ? No just force upon them the draconian excessively burdensome regime that is good enough for all of us plebians on the High Street, or is there a clear case of ant-competitive discrimination against Solicitors. (Nb Large firms able to take on the SRA are exempt from such regulation. Their representation on various SRA panels ensures this.)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There is no need nor room for "professional" McKenzie Friends and the sooner Judges start refusing these people the opportunity to speak in Court, the better. After all QASA is required because of advocacy skill issues isn't it??

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Arthur Robinson

    I'm not sure a judge is properly entitled to refuse a citizen to have assistance in court. Certainly that shouldn't be the case.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Isn't the expression "professional McKenzie friend" an oxymoron?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There is scope for professional McKenzie Friends, certainly within family law. The ordinary person earning less than £20k a year simply cannot afford to pay a solicitor to assist with a dispute over child arrangements. Having someone who has experience and knows the procedure can help with applications and preparation of documents. Many people who are representing themselves feel intimidated by the courts and bullied by solicitors who are representing the opponent. Having someone with them that can prevent that, at a cost they can afford has to be a good thing. I am a professional McKenzie Friend and I am often thanked by barristers, solicitors,Judges and Magistrates for my help in cases. There is room for us all within the present system and rather than complaining about McKenzie friends it would be better for everyone if we could work together.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • More advertising for this particular clique of McKenzie Friends. I suppose Resolution do it for their solicitors.

    Ray Barry & his tin-pot outfit are irrelevant.

    McKenzie Friends have the Institute of Paralegals / Professional Paralegal Register plus the likes of FNF - all of whom already sign a Code of Conduct and have requirements to be listed or members.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10per page20per page

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (12)
  • Save

Petty france

Third-party JR funders must be allowed anonymity – Law Society

25 August 2016By

Ministry of Justice says identification of funders giving more than £3,000 will ensure equality of arms.


Buy-to-let tax changes ‘legislation by stealth’

24 August 2016By

Law Society says amendments at committee stage 'set disturbing precedent'. 

Jeremy Wright QC MP

‘Unduly lenient’ sentences hiked for 102 offenders

24 August 2016By Gazette reporter

Number has risen 13% since 2010, but requests have more than doubled – suggesting judges ‘generally get sentencing right’.