Report comment

Financing is undoubtedly as issue with any regulator/Quango. I am sure a membership fee/annual fee could help to relieve the problem long term for any fee taking MKFs, and in the short term I think the redistribution of funds could be a way forward - we could easily do away with the Legal Services Consumer Panel for example, or indeed the SRA (sorry, got a bit caught up there).

As for naming MKFs in the judgement, I think that is a step too far - unless you want to name all those people involved in hearings where they have reduced fees/worked pro bono/etc. Tomorrow I will be at a fact finding hearing on behalf of my firm, of which my presence will not be charged. Should I be mentioned in the Judgement? (Of course not). What about those that do a bad job - should they be condemned in judgements or simply thanked regardless? Should mentioning include some reference to the fees charged? Is an appraisal going to assist the Court - lets remember why we are all at Court, it certainly isn't to rate Solicitors, Legal Execs et al!

Also I note your term "consumer" - maybe that should be used to mark the relationship in documentation. Solicitors have clients, MKFs have consumers?

BC