Report comment

As their title suggests they are supposed to be 'friends' not a paid for service. Over the years I have been against many, usually in the form of the true McKenzie friend but more and more in the paid adviser role. I recently acted in a private law case involving sexual abuse allegations against the father. He chose to be represented by a Mckenzie friend who was granted rights of audience to cross examine the mother. Extensive findings were made. With the removal of legal aid in private law and financial remedy cases LIP's are increasing and McKenzie friends with them. Not all are bad. Some can be very helpful. If they are charging for their services that should be identified and for my part I think they should not be called 'friends' ( which they are not) but advisers and different considerations should arise in determining whether they are permitted to assist in a McKenzie capacity and even more so if rights of audience are sought. Why should rights of audience be granted to an unqualified person when the client could get a solicitor or counsel to represent them for the same amount? why should the court and other parties have to deal with unqualified representatives? how is the cause of justice served? many solicitors and counsel (by Direct Access) would be available and happy to act at the rates and turnover identified. Perhaps our professions need to publicise how competitive we are as well as pushing for some proper research to be conducted on paid McKenzie advisers or McKenzie advocates. If that is what they become then it suggests even the current Guidelines are nit being properly applied.