Report comment

"As part of the changes in the legislation in regards to MKF's one would like to see, I do feel that Insurance should be on the top of the list in the need to be debated more rigorously and should be a minimum requirement before any person could be granted MKF status, well, that is my opinion anyway."

I assume you mean for fee-requiring MKFs. The MKF who acts as originally intended (i.e. organises papers, etc) can be a force for good in a Court room in my experience, if only to make an LIP feel more secure and often more reasonable to negotiation.

My objection to MKFs is when they act as though they are a solicitor; that all is required to give accurate legal advice is a suit and a file. I have seen LIPs who have clearly not gone beyond the LPC join out-of-court meetings purely to quote their textbooks and strut about with the arrogance of a peacock/barrister.

How about regulatory and insurance requirements for all fee-paid MKFs and clear guidelines prohibiting their conducting litigation on behalf of their customers with a disclaimer noting their inexperience and setting out their restrictions. Finally, a body should oversee a list of MKFs, and strike off those deemed to be in breach (same as for the professionals).

BC