LSB supports fee-charging McKenzie Friends – with safeguards

Sir Michael Pitt

Pitt: profession and regulators must “respond positively to this challenge”

The Legal Services Board (LSB) said yesterday that it supports recognition of fee-charging McKenzie Friends as a “legitimate feature of the evolving legal services market”, but also called for safeguards.

The LSB said these should include a trade association, “some form of accreditation” and indemnity insurance.

Responding to a report by the Legal Services Consumer Panel, LSB chairman Sir Michael Pitt said that litigants should have access to “competent and affordable support at the time they need it”.

He said that sometimes this would be full representation, and sometimes support and advice which could be provided by McKenzie Friends, particularly as economic conditions and judicial practice were “beginning to blur the traditional hard and fast boundaries between the regulated sector and the unregulated”.

The LSB chair said he was “cautious about formally accepting” fee-charging McKenzie Friends, and “concerned that they may be misleadingly perceived as offering a service underpinned by the same standards and consumer protections that are provided by a regulated professional”.

He went on: “That is not to say, however, that we are advocating the regulation of the services provided by McKenzie Friends. To do so might drive such provision out of the market and, in any event, the basis on which this would be done is unclear given that many of the services are unreserved.

“In so far as the activities of any McKenzie Friend bleeds across into the unauthorised provision of a reserved legal activity such as exercising rights of audience, the appropriate controls lie with the judiciary, who are ultimately responsible for allowing this to happen in any particular case.”

Sir Michael said the judiciary was already considering the issue of McKenzie Friends as part of its work on litigants in person and the Lord Chief Justice had announced the establishment of a working group.

Noting the “sceptical – and indeed sometimes hostile – viewpoint of many within the legal sector on the issue of McKenzie Friends, and the reasons for it”, Sir Michael said it was important for the legal profession and approved regulators to “respond positively to this challenge”.

He said there was a need for “clear, targeted information” to help potential litigants understand “possible options for support and the positive and negative aspects of each”.

He agreed with the panel that should be “more certainty” on the definition of “the conduct of litigation” but said the LSB did not have the statutory power to declare the meaning of legislation and it was more appropriate for the courts to deal with it.

Sir Michael reiterated this point in a letter to Mrs Justice Asplin, chair of the judicial working group responding to the consumer panel on the issue.

He added that he understood from the panel that one possible outcome of the working group’s activity would be updated guidance on McKenzie Friends for judges.


    Readers Comments

  • Richard Gray says:

    Mr Pitt,

    As you’re not a lawyer do you agree with no regulation no PI insurance, No Practising certificate and in the event of a foul up no wasted costs and none of it recoverable against the McKenzie friend.

    Shall we have unqualified doctors dentists and nurses as well? It only because of the LSA that lawyers are singled out like this.

    I know a person who would like to do your job at a vastly reduced income at your detriment of course and I would like to volunteer them please. No experience necessary apparently just like McKenzie friends in the case of lawyers

    Can I have your thoughts when your loosing your home because unqualified people are given the blessing you give in allowing them to take on your role?

    Don’t worry keep towing the party line -your jobs safe – public sector type jobs -good money good pension lots of security no paid holidays and need to produce a result or a profit for the shareholders-hmmmm -Can I have your job please (Please?)

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Keeping the conversation going beyond Pride Month

As I reflect on all the celebrations of Pride Month 2024, I ask myself why there remains hesitancy amongst LGBTQ+ staff members about when it comes to being open about their identity in the workplace.

Third-party managed accounts: Your key questions answered

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has given strong indications that it is headed towards greater restrictions on law firms when it comes to handling client money.

Understanding vicarious trauma in the legal workplace

Vicarious trauma can happen to anyone who works with clients who have experienced trauma such as domestic or other violence, child abuse, sexual assault, torture or being a refugee.

Loading animation