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.


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).

Your details