Report comment

The consultation response makes interesting reading: apart from the fact it has not been properly proof-read, what shines through is that there were few aspects in which there was a generally agreed view. In the circumstances it is hardly surprising that the response kicks the question upstairs. Anyway, the list of topics seem to have been selected with some form of regulation in mind, including possibly insurance and some form of official recognition scheme. Changes along those lines should surely not be made by the JEB.

Unlike most lawyer commentators, I am not adamantly opposed to McKenzie friends (although my personal limited experience of them has been depressing, but not as depressing as dealing with litigants in person). In broad terms I consider that there are two choices regarding McKenzie friends: either some form of regulation, so as to give some measure of public protection; or no regulation other than very broad guidance to the judiciary on how to manage their contributions in court. Thus far the latter approach has been adopted; the fact the JEB was asked to consider the issue shows that there are grave judicial concerns about the current ad hoc approach.

The report's discussions relating to PI insurance and fee-charging, let alone the other issues raised, remind me in some measure of legal history, and the development of the role of the attorney (renamed in time, by the early 19th century, as solicitors). If enough of the various aspects are adopted, and find their way into law or regulation, in 20 or 30 years' time we may have developed yet another tier in the legal profession. If so, in my view ultimately it won't work: McKenzie friends will become more professional, not least in their charges, and many litigants in person will find the cost of a McKenzie friend beyond them; and perhaps some new type of unofficial helper will be quietly sanctioned?

There was a sound court management reason for Legal Aid, apart from its other benefits: to ensure that proceedings before the court could be dealt with efficiently and effectively by representatives who knew what they were doing, thus facilitating the administration of justice. Requiring McKenzie friends to adhere to a wide ranging code of conduct - and perhaps inevitably some form of qualification - will likely mean the development of a further tier of 'amateur' advisors for those who cannot afford solicitors or, in time, McKenzie friends.