Report comment

Predictably, I took much the same line myself. The onus of making a robust case was not discharged in the LCJ's consultation document, for restricting in future the present freedom of litigants in person to obtain assistance from non-solicitors that falls short of handing over conduct of their litigation lock, stock and barrel, which (sensibly) can only be done to a solicitor.

My submission is at
https://johnallmanuk.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/mckenzieconsultationresponse.pdf

There is a niche for people like me. We really don't pose any any threat to the livelihoods of solicitors and barristers. I work with solicitors and barristers sometimes, helping my clients to choose their advocates, and to instruct them.

The apt simile is that a solicitor is to a lay legal helper, as a chauffeur-driven limo is to a push bike. Banning bicycles, or requiring cyclists to have MoTs, road tax and insurance, wouldn't improve market conditions much, for limo manufacturers or job-seekers with driving licences who could work as chauffeurs.