Report comment

Interesting use of “need”. I don’t “need” a pension, I don’t “need” income protection, I don’t “need” a police force either. But they’re all things I pay for (some optionally).

“Some of the people coming to us are middle and high-income earners. Solicitors should ask why these people are not using them” Is he inferring that high-earners should restrict their use of services to the most expensive on offer? Can my partner and I no longer enjoy our monthly takeaway, and instead head for the Dorchester? And if we don’t, does that mean the Dorchester is doing something wrong?

“We don’t claim to be professional. We are a lay person who can offer support” Other things that are not professional and offer support include emotional support dogs – are they on offer?

“Kedge says he hopes to employ 200 lawyers” For what? He just said they’re not needed.

“there is a significant risk a Mckenzie Friend will not be aware of the rights of the person they are representing” Considering this has unfortunately been true with qualified solicitors, I believe the risk is magnified with untrained, former police.

The police, like any profession, are a mixed bag and I am definitely pro-innovation. But I wouldn’t use a former officer as an alternative to a solicitor any more that I would use them instead of an architect for an extension. If he really cared, I would suggest he works with MoJ to find a way to make the process more user-friendly so no representation in required, not just try to undercut another provider.