Report comment

It is a shame that my lawyer brethren don’t realise the hypocrisy of their comments. The Bar Council said that in regard to paid MKF “‘The concerns we have are these individuals are unregulated, uninsured and have no duty to the court, unlike a barrister or solicitor.” The bar then goes on to say of unpaid MKF “that individuals acting as a McKenzie friend in a voluntary capacity have an ‘important function in the judicial system’. Herein is the problem, and why the public hold lawyers in such low regard, as the comments suggest that competency is okay so long as the MKF is not charging and taking funding from lawyers. Competency is competency, and is not determined by whether or not you charge or by how much you charge. So using that same line of thinking, how does the Bar Council feel about Claims Management Companies exercising a right of audience as those people are, regulated, insured, and owe a duty to the court (the same as solicitors and barristers and are considered authorised persons under s161 of the LSA)?

I am not a fan of MKF, and find the thought that someone can sit in court and control the LiP like a ventriloquists dummy absurd. But that’s where we are. I also find it strange that a individual has a right to appoint an Attorney to act in his stead to sell his car, sell his house, or manage his affairs during a period of incapacity, but at litigation you cannot appoint an Attorney who is not a solicitor or barrister. We have a multitude of choices every minute of everyday in our lives except, when it comes to representation in court.