Report comment

As others have said, the judiciary should not be involving itself in regulation. There IS a place for McKenzie Friends in both the court arena and outside of it. It is a case of a few bad eggs tarnishing the names of others.

As an MF charging for my services, I am careful to act within my own limitations - of which I am aware - and will rein in as much as I can clients who are keen to pursue a cause which is not in the interests of their case or the children involved. I am upfront about the fact that I have no formal legal qualification other than many years working as an unqualified paralegal. Although not a solicitor, I consider myself morally bound by a similar set of ethics (honesty, integrity, etc).

My experience is often the client is one with a hidden agenda and it is for that reason they wish to represent themselves rather than have counsel or a solicitor. I do not assist in cases where the clients opt to conduct their case in an unreasonable manner or contrary to their children's best interests,, but on a couple of occasions clients have acted unreasonably in court and it has felt as though I am (silently) thought to be responsible for this stance by our professional opponents.

Indeed at least two of my clients are people of substantial means who have chosen not to have "proper" legal representation.

The other end of the spectrum is somebody of limited means he cannot afford a solicitor. I give them clear, honest and realistic advice both in terms of the law and its practical effect/application. In those cases my client may have very unrealistic expectations of what they want to achieve - indeed, they have sometimes already had one, two or more hearings where very little has been achieved and their approach may have frustrated progress of the case. My subsequent involvement is helpful not only to my client, whose mind (and case) is then focused, but also to the other parties. My client is then put on something resembling an equal footing with the other party and everyone is happy.

There is a role for "proper" lawyers here and I don't hesitate to refer clients to solicitors where they can afford one and it is warranted (e.g. where the client is unhappy corresponding directly with the other side or the practical work thrown up by acting for oneself). I also advise clients to instruct counsel under direct access arrangements where it is in their best interests to have professional advocacy. That cuts both ways: I have had at least five clients referred to me over the years by solicitors who I have worked with.

So to cut a long story short, I do believe MFs charging for services is appropriate. It is all about choice for the consumer and, as long as they are fully aware of the facts and can make an informed decision, it's all good.