Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

I am afraid this makes me feel very uncomfortable, I have to wholeheartedly agree with the comment from the Law Society.

Does having 3 years or more experience make you qualified?, I do not think it does.

I have been a Non-Fee Charging MKF since late 2005 and even now I come across issues beyond my control or cases that are very troublesome and I have to seek further assistance else where, predominantly that assistance comes from qualified legal practitioners and is pro-bono

I think this whole idea on its foundations is a good, however, I feel that since the LSCP report was published I have seen a few "Trade" associations spring up, this one being the third, and, all portray to be the leading authority on MKF's, one would feel that for any trade association or governing body to alleviate concerns it has to have its key principles in place from the outset, in this, it is obviously consumer protection.

Just because there may be the safety net of insurance does not mean the MKF would act accordingly, for those who drive, they have insurance, it does not mean they will not crash the car!

The issues being raised about the use of MKF's doesn't seem to be subsiding more so it is escalating, and, quite recently one would say that the case reported a few months back by Mr Justice Cobb at para.288 on wards explains the anxieties the Courts as well as the other parties may have when faced with MKF's of the type described in Cobb J's Judgment [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/2042.html]

I would say that in that case it also highlights the dangers of some if not all of the commentators on this article have expressed.

MKF's come in all shapes and sizes and with various backgrounds, that, is where I feel the principle of the term MKF falls foul, one umbrella cannot hold off the rain for all the different aspects or "Experience" of MKF's

Putting it in another context do we now need to see the term MKF signposted to the history books and simply have terms that fit the bill, for example when I am at an Employment Tribunal or Welfare Tribunal I am not an MKF I am simply an advocate, I maybe going too wide with this and should be in need for further debate.

There is somewhat of a myth that MKF's only deal with Family Law matters, one would agree that that is where the use of MKF's is predominantly found, I would say it is where the consumer could lose the most if things go awry.

Any Trade body that would be worth its salt must have a very knowledgeable person at the helm, not just experienced in Family Matters but overall experience of every tier of the courts and areas of Laws the Consumer encounters, again that maybe a too wide scope but one would feel you would have to be looking at a QC or higher to be at the helm of the Trade Body.

I cannot personally see that happening just yet, although I personally know some Judges have in the past expressed a keen interest in this.

I think the matter has got its sorry backside off the starting blocks and the scope is there to dive the issues forwards, as we see of late with the case of Q v Q this matter will not go away, furthermore, it should never be seen as a replacement for what was there in past nor should it be seen as an exit door for those in power to continue with its drive to destroy the basic fundamental freedoms of Justice.

Your details

Cancel