Report comment

Part of the problem with this debate on the future of McKFs is that people cannot understand or fully grasp that operating as a Litigant in Person is not always about not having the funding to pay a solicitor, it's about wanting to be in control of their own case, whether they hire a McKF or completely DIY their case management and court appearances. Solicitors, by and large, don't want piecemeal inputs - to do all the boring bits or the bits the LIP cannot manage themselves, be it legal advice or something else. It's an all or nothing situation - a like it or lump it approach where I pass the case to them to represent me and I then play the target audience of my own fate. That's all very well and good if you have a great solicitor and you don't know the law . But if you know enough about the law or you have little faith in your solicitor's approach, I want my case back, thanks. Therefore, the very prospect of using a law graduate to 'represent' me (as a Litigant in Person') fails to take that into account. If I would not want a solicitor to do the job for me - because I don't want to lose control, irrespective of whether I can afford a solicitor or not - then why on earth would hiring a law grad. change my opinion, even if I did save a few quid in the process (assuming I didn't end up paying out more through the graduate's bungled inputs).