Astudyoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsandtheirworkinprivate

familylawcases

LeanneSmith,EmmaHitchingsandMarkSefton

June2017

2

AcknowledgementsThis researchwas fundedby theBar Council andwehave been appreciative of theirsupport throughout the project. The research team is independent and the viewsexpressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the BarCouncil.Thanksaredue to thePresidentof theFamilyDivision forgivingpermission toallowthe judiciary to participate in the research and to those at HMCTSwho advised andassistedwiththeapplicationforpermissiontoconductresearchinthecourts.Wearegratefultomembersofthejudiciary,courtmanagersandstaffatthefivecourtsused for the observed case stage of the research who were very helpful inaccommodatingusonourcourtvisits.Weextendparticularthankstotheushersateachcourtwhomadeeveryefforttohelpusidentifyappropriatecases.Wewouldalsoliketothank the anonymous interviewees –McKenzie Friends, clients of McKenzie Friends,and others - who generously gave their time to be interviewed, and all those whoallowedustoobservetheircases.Furthersupport in the fieldworkstagesof the interviewswasprovidedbysomeveryhelpful staff fromaCitizensAdviceBureau, thePersonal SupportUnit andby severalother individualsandorganisationswhoassistedus inrecruiting interviewees for theclientinterviewsstageoftheresearch.Finally,wearegratefulfortheadviceprovidedontheresearchand/oronearlierdraftsof this report byMavisMaclean (Senior Research Fellow, St Hilda’s College, Oxford),Professor Alan Paterson (University of Strathclyde) and Professor RichardMoorhead(UCL).

TheauthorsDrLeanneSmithisaseniorlectureratCardiffUniversityDrEmmaHitchingsisaseniorlectureratBristolUniversityMarkSeftonisanindependentsocio-legalresearcher

3

TableofContents

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................2

Theauthors.....................................................................................................................2

1.Backgroundtothestudy............................................................................................5

1.1Thecontext...............................................................................................................5

1.2Thestudy..................................................................................................................91.2.1Component1–FreestandinginterviewswithMcKenzieFriends...........................101.2.2Component2–InterviewswithLiPclientsofMcKenzieFriends...........................101.2.3Component3–Court-basedobservationandlinkedinterviews............................111.2.4Accessandethics.........................................................................................................121.2.5Anoteonanalysisandterminology...........................................................................12

2.McKenzieFriendsandtheirclients........................................................................14

2.1TheMcKenzieFriendinterviewsample..............................................................142.1.1EstimatingthenumberoffeechargingMcKenzieFriends......................................142.1.2CharacteristicsofMcKenzieFriendsincludedintheresearch...............................15

2.2Atypologyoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriends.....................................................162.1.1.Thebusinessopportunist..........................................................................................172.1.2.Theredirectedspecialist............................................................................................182.1.3.GoodSamaritan...........................................................................................................192.1.4.TheFamilyJusticeCrusader......................................................................................202.1.5.The‘rogue’...................................................................................................................21

2.3BusinessPracticesofMcKenzieFriends..............................................................232.3.1Businessstructures.....................................................................................................232.3.2Termsandconditionsofbusiness..............................................................................242.3.3Feestructures..............................................................................................................252.3.4Professionalindemnityinsurance(PII)....................................................................262.3.5Dataprotectionissues.................................................................................................272.3.6Complaintsprocedures...............................................................................................282.3.7Obtainingclients..........................................................................................................292.3.8Trainingandprofessionaldevelopment...................................................................302.3.9Workingfromhome....................................................................................................322.3.10Ethicaldilemmas/issuesfortheMcKenzieFriend.................................................33

2.4Theclientsoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriends.....................................................342.4.1.Whoarethey?..............................................................................................................342.4.2ReportedreasonsforusinguseMcKenzieFriends?.................................................36

2.5Conclusions.............................................................................................................40

Keyfindings..................................................................................................................41

3.Thehiddendepths:workdoneoutsideofcourt...................................................42

3.1.Thescopeof‘theextendedrole’..........................................................................423.1.1Paperwork....................................................................................................................433.1.2Managingexpectations................................................................................................453.1.3Supportingsettlement.................................................................................................463.1.4Legaladvice..................................................................................................................47

4

Thegreyarea..............................................................................................................................493.1.5Avoidingundertakingtheconductoflitigation........................................................50

3.2Out-of-courttasksandMcKenzieFriendcompetence.......................................523.2.1The‘vignette’exercise.................................................................................................54

3.3Conclusion..............................................................................................................56

Keyfindings..................................................................................................................58

4.Thetipoftheiceberg:In-courtactivityforthefee-chargingMcKenzieFriend.59

4.1Fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsatcourt.............................................................594.1.1Identifyingthefee-chargingMcKenzieFriendatcourt............................................594.1.2Theprevalenceoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsinprivatefamilylawhearings................................................................................................................................................62

4.2.Supportatcourt-howhelpfulwereMcKenzieFriends?..................................634.2.1Rightsofaudience........................................................................................................63a.Therestrainedapproach:McKenzieFriendsascoaches.............................................66McKenzieFrienduseofdirectaccessbarristers........................................................................67b.Thepragmaticapproach:theMcKenzieFriendasunderstudy..................................68c.TheDifficultfew:rightsofaudienceandMcKenzieFriendsasfrustratedactors...70Anoteoncrossexamination.......................................................................................................71

4.2.2Moralandpracticalsupport.......................................................................................72a.Helpingthelitiganttoparticipateeffectively................................................................72b.Draftingorders....................................................................................................................73c.Negotiationandsettlementactivity................................................................................74d.Negotiationasareservedactivity?..................................................................................76

4.3Miscellaneousobservations..................................................................................77

4.4Conclusions.............................................................................................................78

Keyfindings.....................................................................................................................80

5.Conclusions...............................................................................................................81

5.1Thegood,thebad,andthehithertounknown....................................................81

5.2Somethoughtsontheregulatoryramificationsoftheresearch.......................845.2.1Thecaseforexcludingfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsfromcourts......................845.2.2Mindtheregulatorygap..................................................................................................86

References....................................................................................................................88

Glossary..........................................................................................................................92

Appendix1....................................................................................................................95

VignetteusedinfreestandinginterviewswithMcKenzieFriends..........................95

5

1.Backgroundtothestudy

1.1ThecontextMcKenzieFriendsarealong-standingfeatureofourcivilandfamilyjusticesystem.Theterm ‘McKenzieFriend’ originates froma1970CourtofAppeal case1 inwhich itwasconfirmedthatlitigantshavea(rebuttable)righttoreceivelayassistanceinthecourseofrepresentingthemselves.Anarrayoflatercaseselaboratedonthecontentandextentof that right and the common law principles governing its exercise were eventuallyconsolidatedintoPracticeGuidance,themostrecentversionbeingpublishedin2010.2The lay assistance envisagedbyMcKenzie vMcKenziewas assistanceprovidedwithinthe court environment and that position is reflected in the Practice Guidance, whichstatesthat:‘McKenzieFriendsmay:i)providemoralsupportforlitigants;ii)takenotes;iii) helpwith casepapers; iv) quietly give advice on any aspect of the conduct of thecase’.3Althoughthetraditional typeofMcKenzieFriend isstillverymuch inevidence inourcourts,4thereachofthetitlehasextendedtodescribetheroleofaverydifferenttypeofsupporter,namelyonewhoprovides‘layassistance’onaregularbasisandadditionallyundertakesarangeofancillarytasksoutsideofthecourtbutinconnectionwithcourtproceedings.5 Ina furtheraugmentationof theoriginal role, ithasbeenreported thatMcKenzieFriendsincreasinglyseekrightsofaudience.6Butitisnotjustthescopeoftherole that has altered; the people playing the role have changed too. As originallyconceived, the lay support of McKenzie Friends was – almost by definition, beingprovided on a ‘friendly’ basis – unremunerated. There has never been anything toprevent the support being remunerated (indeed the possibility of it being so isimplicitlyacknowledgedinthe2010PracticeGuidance)7andtheexistenceofMcKenzieFriends who provide frequent support on a fee-charging basis has been known for

1McKenzievMcKenzie[1970]3W.L.R.4722PracticeGuidance(McKenzieFriends:CivilandFamilyCourts)[2010]1WR1881.SeealsothehelpfulsummaryoftheexpectedcontentoflayassistanceprovidedbytheJudicialWorkingGrouponLitigantsinPersonReport(JudiciaryofEnglandandWales,July2013)assomeoneattendingcourt‘asafriendofalitigantinpersontotakenotes,quietlytomakesuggestionsandtogiveadvice’(seepara6.4).3Ibid,atpara3.4Inastudycomprising150observationsofprivatefamilycasesconductedpriortothelegalaidreformsinApril2013,Trinderetalobserved21individualsprovidinginformal,unremuneratedsupportinthecourtroom.SeeLTrinder,RHunter,EHitchings,JMiles,RMoorhead,LSmith,MSefton,VHinchly,KBaderandJPearce,Litigantsinpersoninprivatefamilylawcases(MinistryofJusticeAnalyticalSeries2014).5This‘extendedrole’hasbeendescribedbytheLegalServicesConsumerPanel:Fee-ChargingMcKenzieFriends(April2014).Interestinglyourexperienceofconductingresearchinthefamilycourtssuggeststhattheterm‘McKenzieFriend’isfarlesslikelytobeusedbylitigants,supportersorcourtstafftodescribetheinformalsupportprovidedbyafriendorfamilymember.Neitherisitnormallyusedtodescribethemorestructuredandvisiblesupportprovidedby,forexample,aPersonalSupportUnitsupporterorastudentlawclinicrepresentative.AllthissuggeststhatthetermMcKenzieFriendisincreasinglyusedmoreofteninconnectionwiththoseplayingthe‘extendedrole’thanthoseplayingthetraditionalrole.6Seechapter4formoredetailonthispoint.7Above,n2,atparas27-30.ThepositioninScotlandisdifferent,asdetailedinn19,below.

6

decades.8 However, anecdotal evidence that fee-charging McKenzie Friends areincreasinglyprevalenthaspromptednumerousexpressionsofconcern.In2011,theCivil JusticeCounciltooktheviewthat ‘ItwillbecomemoreimportanttoensurethattheapproachtoMcKenzieFriendsisoneofreadinesstowelcomeandvaluethe contribution that somecanmake rather thanoneofover-cautionabout theharmthat some can do’.9 They said little on the subject of fee-charging McKenzie Friendsgenerally, but clearly considered the idea that paid McKenzie Friends should securerightsofaudiencetobeproblematic,notingthat‘itistobehopedthatcourtswouldbevery resistant to allowing a right of audience to a McKenzie friend who was takingpayment’.10TheCivil JusticeCouncildidnotexpresslyarticulate the reason for theirobjectiononthispoint,butitcanreasonablybeinferredthattheobjectionstemsfromthefactthatrightsof audiencearea reservedactivityunder theLegal ServicesAct2007.As such,they are in theory supposed only to be exercised by those subject to the regulatoryoversight of the relevant professional bodies (with all the training, registration andinsurancecoststhatentails forprofessionalsexercisingthem).Underthetermsofthelegislation, judges retain a residual discretion to confer rights of audience onunqualified and unregulated individuals for the purposes of particular proceedings.11But,while it isone thing topermita friendor familymember tospeakonbehalfofastrugglinglitigantinpersononaone-offbasis,itisarguablyquiteanotherforsomeoneto be permitted to exercise rights of audience repeatedly, for a fee. As the currentPractice Guidance states, the grant of rights of audience to fee-charging McKenzieFriendsonanythingotherthananexceptionalbasiswould‘tendtosubvertthewillofParliament’asexpressedintheLegalServicesAct.12Ina2014researchstudy,theLegalServicesConsumerPanel(LSCP)setoutthemyriadreasons for concernabout theworkof fee-chargingMcKenzieFriends asunregulatedprovidersof legalserviceswithaccesstothecourts.Theconcerns–someexplicitandsomeimplicitintheLSCP’sreport-include:theriskofpooradvice,combinedwithlackof regulatoryprotections for thosewhouseMcKenzieFriends; thepotential threat tothe efficient administration of justice (due to inexperience, lack of knowledge orobstructive behaviour); and the apparent prevalence of agenda-driven McKenzieFriendswhosepersonalagendasarenotmoderatedbyadutytotheirclientsortothecourts.13 Running counter to these concerns, the LSCP identified reasons to bemorebroadly tolerant of the existence of fee-chargingMcKenzie Friends. Foremost amongthesearethebenefitsofpromotingconsumerchoiceandtheincreasedopportunitiestoobtain access to justice that the existence of cheap, unregulated advicemight afford,especially for those who might not otherwise be able to afford help. The latterconsiderationhasassumedparticularimportancefollowingthewithdrawaloflegalaid

8ThecaseofRvBowCountyCourt,expartePelling[1999]2AllER583,forexample,concernedanexperiencedMcKenzieFriendwhohadbeenprovidingservicesforafeeforseveralyears.9CivilJusticeCouncil,AccesstoJusticeforLitigantsinPerson:AreportandseriesofrecommendationstotheLordChancellorandtotheLordChiefJustice(November2011),atpara145.10Ibid,para14611Schedule3,paragraph1(2)LegalServicesAct2007.12Above,n2,para23.13LSCP(2014),aboven5.Seeinparticularchapter4.

7

for, among other things, most private law family disputes through the Legal Aid,SentencingandPunishmentofOffendersAct2012(LASPO).Unfortunately,adearthofresearchcoveringtheworkoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsmeansthere isathinevidencebaseonwhichinformedjudgementsabouttherelativeweight of the threats and opportunities presented by this emerging strand ofunregulated legal services might be built. The LSCP research of course made somecontribution to building the evidence. Following an examination of McKenzie Friendwebsites,focusgroupinterviewswithandcallsforevidencefromstakeholders(suchasjudges), and interviews with McKenzie Friends, their report was relatively sanguineabout fee-charging McKenzie Friends, concluding that there was little evidence tosubstantiate concerns about the threats they might pose and that they ought to beaccepted‘asalegitimatefeatureoftheevolvinglegalservicesmarket’.14Theysuggestedthat a self-regulatory body ought to be established to minimise the potential forMcKenzieFriendpracticestohavenegativeimpact.15TheLSCPstudywasusefulincanvassingtheissueoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsandinbringing someevidence tobear on it.However, the report hasbeen insufficient tosubstantiateordispelconcernsabouttheworkoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriends.Theresearchwassmall-scaleand,as isacknowledgedinthereport, limited in itsscope. Itwasthereforeunabletoquantifythelevelsofriskposedbytheabsenceorpresenceoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriends.Fromthereportitself,itisdifficulttojudgewhetherornottheconclusionspresentedcanbesupportedbytheevidence;verylittleinformationaboutthedataorapproachtoanalysisisincludedinthereportandthesanguinetoneofthe conclusions contrasts notably with some of the presented case studies ofproblematicMcKenzie Friend experiences. In any event, the study did not elicit datafromusersofMcKenzieFriends,aproblematicgapthatisacknowledgedinthereport.16NeitherdidityieldmuchindependentinformationonthenatureorqualityoftheworkdonebypaidMcKenzieFriends,beingbasedlargelyonMcKenzieFriends’ownaccountsoftheirworksupplementedbyanecdotalevidencesubmittedbylegalprofessionalsandCitizensAdviceBureaux,amongstothers.On these latter points a study of litigants in person in private family law cases byTrinder et al, published almost contemporaneouslywith the LSCP report, highlightedconcerns(itshouldbenotedherethateachmemberoftheteaminvolvedinthecurrentprojectwasinvolvedintheTrinderetalstudy).Thestudyencompassedobservationsofthreehearings involvingpaidMcKenzie Friends and found thework of theMcKenzieFriend to be extremely positive in one case but concerning in the other two.17Withreference to the protection of litigants using McKenzie Friends and to the efficientadministrationofjustice,Trinderetal’sreportconcludedthatitwashardtodiscernany‘addedvalue’frompaidMcKenzieFriendsascomparedwithfriendsorfamilymembers.Trinder et al’s research was intensive, comprising observation of a case hearing,combinedwith follow-up interviewswith the litigant, McKenzie Friend and involvedlegal professionals, and scrutiny of the relevant court case file. Nonetheless, theconclusionson fee-chargingMcKenzieFriends arebasedon a very small sample and,14LSCP,aboven5,para5.7.15Ibid,paras6.10-6.13.16Ibid,para2.1017Trinderetal,aboven4,p97.

8

althoughtheyraisedoubtsabouttheLSCP’sconclusions,theycanonlybereliedupontoalimitedextent.SincepublicationoftheLSCPreportandTrinderetal’sstudy,anefforthasbeenmadeto respond to the former’s recommendation that paidMcKenzie Friends should self-regulate.TheSocietyofProfessionalMcKenzieFriendswasestablishedin2014butthusfar its existence has not been sufficient to allay concerns about the work of paidMcKenzie Friends. Indeed, the Lord Chief Justice’s recent consultation paper onMcKenzieFriendssoughtviewsonaproposalto:

…prohibitrecoveryofexpensesandfeesincurredbyMcKenzieFriends…throughprovidingthattheprovisionofreasonableassistanceincourt,theexerciseofarightofaudienceorofaright toconduct litigationshouldonlybepermittedwheretheMcKenzieFriendisneitherdirectlynorindirectlyinreceiptofremuneration.18

The proposal references recent changes to court rules in Scotland that prohibit thechargingoffeesfortheprovisionoflaysupportincourts.19Meanwhile,recentreportsby the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)20 and the Legal Services Board(LSB)21 have touched upon the issue of unregulated legal services, including thoseprovidedbyMcKenzieFriends.ThosereportsareinonesensetruetothespiritoftheLSCPreport,exhibitingopennesstotheprospectofemergingunregulatedlegalservicesandthepotentialforthemtobeofbenefittoconsumersoflegalservices.However,theyhavenotbeendismissiveofconcernsabout theneedforgreaterconsumerprotectionagainst inadequate service providers, with the CMA presenting a case for extendingconsumer protections to the users of unregulated legal services. The CMA alsorecommended a review of the regulatory framework for legal services, noting thepotentialfor‘pooralignmentbetweenriskandthescopeofthereservedlegalactivities’toresultin‘consumerdetrimentastheproportionofunauthorisedpersonsoperatinginthelegalservicessectorincreases’.22IntermsofbolsteringtheevidencebaseontheworkofMcKenzieFriends,theCMAandLSB reports do little; neither directly examined the work that they do and eachencountered only a very small number of fee-chargingMcKenzie Friends.23However,some support for the possibility that fee-chargingMcKenzie Friendsmight be worthembracingcanbedrawnfromresearchthatlooksmorebroadlyatthequalityofadvice18LordChiefJusticeofEnglandandWales,Reformingthecourts’approachtoMcKenzieFriends:aconsultation(2016),para4.21.Discussionatpp19-21.Thereissomeambiguityabouttheintendedscopeoftheproposalresultingfromtheprecisewordinganddetailcontainedhereandlaterinthedocument.Thisisdiscussedfurtherlaterinthisreport.19ActofSederunt(SheriffCourtRules)(LayRepresentation)2013andActofSederunt(RulesoftheCourtofSessionamendmentNo.3)(Miscellaneous)2012(SSI2012/189).UsefuldiscussionofthecomplexrulesrelatedtolaysupportandrepresentationinScotlandcanbefoundin:ScottishCivilJusticeCouncil,AccesstoJusticeLiteratureReview:Partylitigantsandthesupportavailabletothem(December2014).20CompetitionandMarketsAuthority,Legalservicesmarketstudy:Finalreport(December2016).21LegalServicesBoard,Mappingofforprofitunregulatedlegalservicesproviders(June2016).22CMA,aboven20,p13.23TheCMAindicatesthatfewerthan1%of750surveyedindividualsreportedpayingaMckenzieFriendforlegalservices(above,n20,p38).TheLSBfoundonly4instancesoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsbeingusedasthemainproviderofassistancewithalegalproblem,outofasampleof5,512(above,n21,p12).

9

providedbynon-lawyers.Morethanonestudycomparingadvicegivenbylawyersandnon-lawyersindifferentsectorshasconcludedthatthelatterarecapableofprovidingservicesthatareasvaluable,evensometimesmorevaluable,thanthoseprovidedbytheformer.24Comparisonsmaydependon the levelsof specialisationby the lawyersandnon-lawyersandtheapproachofthecourtstheyareoperatingin.25Suchresearchgivescausetopauseforthoughtbeforeassumingthatallfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsmustbebad.Suchpauseshouldalsobepromptedbythefactthatamajorityoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriendworkappearstobefocusedonprivatefamilylawproceedings.26Thisis an area inwhichunmetneed ishigh, andnot just following the implementationofLASPO; a high proportion of litigants in personhave always featured in family cases.Compounding the unmet need for legal advice and representation is the strikingprevalence of other problems, such asmental health issues and financial struggles,27among adults experiencing family breakdown. Trinder et al’s study also found highratesofpersonalvulnerabilityamongthepopulationoflitigantsinpersoninthefamilycourts.28Thedebateoverfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsremainsintense.Inthelifecycleofthisresearchprojectlegalandgeneralmediaaboundedwithstoriesof‘rogue’examples,orabout the general threats that the encroachment of unqualified and unregulatedadvisers intothe legalservicessectorposes for the legalprofessionsandtherisks forthe administration of justice. But this is a debate inwhich opinion and anecdote areplentifulandfactsandevidencearescarceandthecaseforfurtherresearchispressing.Against this backdrop, this report presents the findings of a qualitative study of thework of fee-charging McKenzie Friends in private family law cases, with a view tofacilitatingmoreinformeddiscussiononthewayforward.

1.2ThestudyThe aims of the studywere to increase understanding of thework that fee-chargingMcKenzie Friends do and how they approach their work. We particularly aimed toexploretwoknowledgegapsthatexistingresearchhadnotaddressed:first,thelackofdata on the perspectives and experiences of the clients of McKenzie Friends; andsecondlythelackofinformationonhowMcKenzieFriendsapproachworkbothinandoutsideofthecourtenvironment.24SeeinparticularRMoorhead,APatersonandASherr,‘Contestingprofessionalism:Legalaidandnon-lawyersinEnglandandWales’[2003]37LawandSocietyReview765.ForafurtherexampleseeRebeccaL.SandefurandThomasM.Clarke,RolesBeyondLawyers:SummaryRecommendationsandResearchReportofanEvaluationoftheNewYorkCityCourtNavigatorsProgramanditsThreePilotProjects,(December2016).25See,further,DJamesGreinerandCassandraWolosPattanayak,‘RandomizedEvaluationinLegalAssistance:WhatDifferenceDoesRepresentation(OfferandActualUse)Make?’[2012]YaleLawJournal2118;DJamesGreiner,CassandraWolosPattanayakandJonathanHennessy,‘TheLimitsofUnbundledLegalAssistance:ARandomizedStudyinaMassachusettsDistrictCourtandProspectsfortheFuture’(2012)126Harv.L.Rev.901.26AsnotedintheLSCPstudy,aboven5.AquickwebsearchforpaidMcKenzieFriends,oraglanceatthemembersoftheSocietyofProfessionalMcKenzieFriendssupportstheLSCP’sevidence,andtheanecdotalevidence,thatthisisthecase.2747%and54%respectivelyaccordingtothemostrecentdata.RFranklin,TBudd,RBerrillandMWilloughby,Keyfindingsfromthelegalproblemandresolutionsurvey,2014-15(MinistryofJusticeAnalyticalSeries,2017).28Trinderetal,aboven4,chapter2.

10

Theresearchstudywasqualitativeandaimedtobuildinsightintoarangeofpractices,experiencesandperspectivesratherthantoprovidequantitativedatathatmightinformassessment of the quality of the work done by McKenzie Friends with reference tospecific benchmarks or variables. The findings are based on a relatively small-scale,purposivelyselectedsample.Therewerethreecomponentstothestudy.

1.2.1Component1–FreestandinginterviewswithMcKenzieFriendsThisstageoftheresearchconsistedof20semi-structuredinterviewswithfee-chargingMcKenzieFriends.Theinterviewslastedbetween1and2hoursand,forthemostpart,were conducted in person. The interview schedule covered general aspects of theMcKenzieFriend’sbackgroundandworkingpractices,adetaileddiscussionoftheworkdone in their most recently concluded case, and a response to a short vignette. Thevignettewasdesignedtoexplorethewayinwhichintervieweesmightapproachadviceandprocedureinastandardprivatechildrencase(seeappendix1).The interview samplewasnot randomly generated (and indeed, given the very smallnumberof fee-chargingMcKenzieFriends inEnglandandWales29and the lackofanysampling frame, it could not be). Rather, the intervieweeswere selected purposivelywith efforts made to ensure balanced representation of a range of characteristics(further details are given in chapter 2). A list of potential participants was initiallydrawn up from details of fee-charging McKenzie Friends published on a number ofdirectories,30aswellasaround20websitespromotingsuchMcKenzieFriendservices,thatwereidentifiedbytheresearchers.Thoseonthelistwereinvitedbyletterand/oremailtoparticipateinaninterviewinwavesuntilthetargetnumberofinterviewshadbeen secured. Five McKenzie Friends either declined to be interviewed or failed torespondtointerviewrequests.

1.2.2Component2–InterviewswithLiPclientsofMcKenzieFriendsWe recruited 20 clients of fee-charging McKenzie friends for short telephoneinterviews. These interviews lasted approximately 30minutes andwere designed toelicit responses to questions focusing on: reasons for choosing to use a fee-chargingMcKenzie Friend; understanding and expectations of theMcKenzie Friend role;whattheMcKenzieFrienddid;andtheamountspentontheservices.Originallyweattemptedto recruit the sampleby leaving information leaflets andposters at Personal SupportUnits andCitizensAdviceBureaux andwithushers/onnoticeboards at family courts.Potential participants were invited to contact one of the research team by email ortelephone.Thisstrategyyieldedonlyoneinterviewee.Intheend,alltheotherintervieweeswererecruited following a notice about the research being circulated via themailing listsand/orsocialmediaaccountsofOnePlusOne,OnlyMumsandOnlyDads,andthePinkTape legalblog.Potentialparticipantswereasked to clickona linkanddiverted toaproject webpage giving details about the project and explaining how to contact the

29Seechapter4ofthereportformoredetailonthis.30ThedirectoriesusedincludedthosepublishedbytheSocietyofProfessionalMcKenzieFriends,FamiliesNeedFathers,IndependentNetworkofMcKenzieFriendsandMcKenzieFriends.org.uk.

11

researchers.Inspiteofoureffortstogenerateasampleusingneutralreferralagencies,andinspiteofthefactthatthesocialmediarequestswerewidelydispersed(thankstoTwitter), few of those responding to our request came via those agencies. The vastmajorityofoursamplewasgenerated fromsources thatwouldbeexpectedtohaveaprofee-chargingMcKenzieFriendleaning(i.e.emailsfromindividualMcKenzieFriendsnotifying their clients of the study and in one instance asking them to ‘participate tofightthebanonMcKenzieFriends’,oremailsfromorganisationscloselyconnectedwithfee-charging McKenzie Friends).We did not proactively seek the assistance of thosesourcesingeneratingasample,butitwasaninevitableconsequenceoftheuseofsocialmediathattheywouldpickuptherequest.Notonly isourclientsampleself-selectingtherefore,but it isalso likelytobeskewedtowardsthosewithbroadlypositiveexperiencesoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriends.Thesample isuseful forproviding insight intowhatsome litigants likeabout fee-chargingMcKenzie Friends, andwhy theyused them insteadof lawyers. It also adds a furtherlayer to our data on what fee-charging McKenzie Friends actually do and how theyapproach their work. What this sample does not do, is indicate how widespreadsatisfactionordissatisfactionwithservicesprovidedbyfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsmightbe.

1.2.3Component3–Court-basedobservationandlinkedinterviewsToaddinsightintowhatfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsactuallydoandtheirimpactoncourt hearings, we sought to observe their work in the court setting directly, byobtainingpermissiontosit inonprivatefamilylawhearingsandtakenotesabouttheproceedings. Where possible, short follow-up interviews were conducted (subject toconsentandlogistical feasibility)withanyorallof:thefee-chargingMcKenzieFriend;client/litigant inperson; andanyotherpartyor lawyer involved in the case.Theaimwastosampleaminimumof10casehearingsandobtain25linkedinterviews.Thecaseobservationsamplewasdrawnfromfivedesignatedfamilycourts,purposivelyselectedonthebasisoftheirhighvolumeofprivatefamilylawcasesandaccessibilitytotheresearchteam.Amemberoftheresearchteamwaspresentatoneofthesecourtson34daysbetweenAugustandNovember2016.Outof846privatefamilylawcaseslistedonthosecourtobservationdays,14caseswereidentifiedasinvolvingapaidMcKenzieFriendandpermissiontoobservewasgrantedinsevencases.Theresearchteamwasabletoobtain14linkedinterviews.31Duringeachhearingobservation, the researchermadehand-writtennotesaddressingtopics suchas: the rolesplayedby theMcKenzieFriend, theLiP, otherpartyandanylawyer,includingapproachestorightsofaudience;thebehaviouranddemeanouroftheMcKenzieFriendandtheirLiPclient;aspectsoftheMcKenzieFriend’scontributionthatappearedpositiveornegative;aspectsofthehearinginrespectofwhichtheMcKenzieFriendandtheirLiPclientappearedtostrugglewithorcopewellwith.Followingthehearing,wherepossible,theresearcherhadaninformalconversationwiththejudicialofficer asking to what extent the hearing observedwas typical of hearings involving31Fromtheobservationlinkedinterviews,therearesixlitigantinpersonclientsofMcKenzieFriends;fiveMcKenzieFriends(oneofwhomwasincludedinourfreestandinginterviewsample);twootherpartyinterviewsandoneinterviewwiththeotherparty’slawyer.

12

McKenzieFriendsthattheyhadexperienced.Theresearchertookhandwrittennotesofanyresponse.

1.2.4AccessandethicsApprovalforthestudyasawholewasobtainedfromCardiffSchoolofLawandPoliticsResearchEthicsCommittee. Permission to conduct the court observation stageof theresearch (including a Privileged Access Agreement)was granted through theHMCTSDataAccessPanelandthePresidentoftheFamilyDivision.

1.2.5AnoteonanalysisandterminologyOurdata took the formof qualitative interview transcriptions and fieldworknotes. Itwas analysed using an inductive thematic approach. It should be noted that thisresearchwas not designed tomeasure the quality of thework done by fee-chargingMcKenzie Friends against thework done by lawyers.Many useful studies have beendonecomparingtheworkdonebylawyersandnon-lawyersbutthosestudiesrequiredhighresourcesandcomparedperformanceonsimilartasks.Oneoftheobjectivesofthepresent research was to find out more about what tasks McKenzie Friends actuallyperform, since there is little evidence on the extent towhich they replicate theworkusuallydonebylawyersorprovidedifferenttypesofsupport.Assuch,thisstudywasdesignedwithoutknowledgeofwhether,andifsohow,theworkdonebylawyersandby fee-charging McKenzie Friends would actually be comparable. In any event, theresearchteam’sviewisthat,atthisstage,thekeyquestionisnotwhetherfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsprovideservicesthatcanbeapproximatedinnatureandqualitywiththose provided by lawyers to represented litigants. Such a question runs the risk ofimplicitly reproducing the very assumption that research on fee-charging McKenzieFriends should probe – namely, that only the model of legal services traditionallyprovided by solicitors and barristers is valuable. Rather, the key question iswhetherfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsprovideservicesthatarevaluabletolitigantsinperson.A related concern is whether they are in any way harmful to the administration ofjustice. The data yielded by this study provides useful insights on both these points,thoughitdoesnotprovideabasisfromwhichtherespectivevaluesandrisksofusingMcKenzieFriendscanbeclearlydelineatedorquantified.Should it transpire that fee-charging McKenzie Friends are indeed replicating, or claiming to be replicating, theworkdonebylawyers,acomparativestudywouldbeuseful.Fee-charging McKenzie Friends are a relatively small population so, to protect theanonymityofthoseinvolvedinthisstudy,noidentifiersareattachedtothedatausedinthisreport.Throughout,weusegender-neutraltermsinreferencetostudyparticipants,and quotes fromMcKenzie Friend or client interviews are simplymarked as comingfrom a ‘McKenzie Friend/client interview’, or ‘observation linked McKenzie Friend/clientinterview’.Duetothesmallsamplesizeandtheassociatedriskof inadvertentlyidentifying the cases we observed, we have not assigned case identifying codes toquotes or examples drawn from observations.We have also felt obliged to withholdsome details that might have better illustrated the discussion in the interests ofsafeguardingconfidentiality.Throughoutthereport,unlessthecontextdemandsotherwise,weusethetermprivatefamily law to includebothprivate law children cases and financial remedy cases.We

13

use the acronym LiP (litigant in person) in reference to litigants who representthemselves. Where the LiP has paid a fee to engage the services of a fee-chargingMcKenzieFriend,werefertothemasaclientoftheMcKenzieFriend.Giventheremitofthestudy,allreferencestoMcKenzieFriendsrelatetofee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsinparticular,unlessotherwisespecified.

14

2.McKenzieFriendsandtheirclientsThischapterofthereportcoversthemotivations,backgrounds,trainingandaffiliationsandbusinesspractices(includingapproachesto feechargingandobtainingclients)ofMcKenzieFriends. It alsooutlines thebackgroundandmotivationsofLiP clients.Thediscussion here is primarily based on data drawn from the interviews (bothfreestanding and linked to court observations)we conductedwithMcKenzie FriendsandMcKenzie Friend clients, though occasional insights from the court observationsthemselvesarepresentedtoo.

2.1TheMcKenzieFriendinterviewsample2.1.1EstimatingthenumberoffeechargingMcKenzieFriendsIn 2014, the LSCP suggested itwas not able to quantify the numbers of fee-chargingMcKenzie Friends, although it referred to anecdotal evidence of increased numberssincethecutstolegalaid.32Onerecentstudyestimatedthattherewerebetween40-50fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsinoperationinthelegalservicessectorinEnglandandWales.33 On that estimate, our sample of 24 interviewees34 could be taken to includearound half of the total population of fee-charging McKenzie Friends. However, forseveralreasons,wethinkthefigureislikelytobeanunderestimate.First, we initially identified approximately 50McKenzie Friends operating in privatefamilycasesfromarangeofonlinedirectoriesandwebsitesidentifiedthroughGooglesearches.However,ofthe11fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsweencounteredatcourt,35we had only identified three during our early search for interview participants; theothers did not have an easily traceable online presence. At least one did advertisethrough awebsite, but using terminology thatmeant thewebsite didnot showup insearches forMcKenzieFriends.36 Secondly, itbecameclearduring the research thatanumberofMcKenzieFriendsoperateprimarily throughsocialmediaand/orword-of-mouthrecommendations,especially throughsupportnetworksdesignedprimarily forfathers,e.g.FamiliesNeedFathers(FNF).37Finally,astheLegalServicesBoardrecentlynoted,theMcKenzieFriendsmarket‘ischaracterisedbypeopleenteringandleavingthemarket,withasmallerpoolofMcKenzieFriendswhoaremoreestablishedwithinthesystem.’38Somefee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsoperateonafairlycasualbasis,possiblyfor a short period of time following a personal experience with the family justice

32LSCP,above,n5,para2.533ThisfigurewasprovidedbytheSPMF.CMA,above,n20,para4.75.3420freestandinginterviewsand4courtobservationlinkedinterviews.35Weidentified14eligiblecases.Intwoinstancesthecasewasnotidentifieduntilafterthehearinghadcommenced,soobservationwasnotpossibleandwedidnotencountertheMcKenzieFriend.Oftheremaining12cases:onefee-chargingMcKenzieFrienddidnotshowup;onecaseinvolvedtwofee-chargingMcKenzieFriends;twoseparatecasesinvolvedthesameMcKenzieFriend.36Seechapter4formoreonthevaryingterminologyusedbyMcKenzieFriendstodescribethemselves.37FamiliesNeedFathersadvertiseas“supportingallparents-dads,mumsandgrandparentstohavepersonalcontactandmeaningfulrelationshipswiththeirchildrenfollowingparentalseparation.”However,theirlatestpublishedannualreportindicatesafocusonnon-residentparents,andthemajorityofnon-residentparentswillbefathers.Wehavebeentoldthat,althoughFamiliesNeedFathersitselfdoesprovidesupportforbothmothersandfathers,itspredominantaudienceisthelatter.38LSB,above,n21,p12

15

system. For these reasons we think it more likely that the number of fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsoperatingatanygiven time in the legal servicessector forEnglandandWales is in the region of 100 or so,withmany of those operating in the field ofprivate family law. On this view, our sample still represents a substantial minority(aroundaquarter)of fee-chargingMcKenzieFriends.But the importantpointhere isthatthereisreasontobelievethatthepopulation,whilebiggerthansomeestimates,isin factverysmall (forcomparison, thenumberofpractisingsolicitors inEnglandandWalesiscurrentlyaround136,000).39

2.1.2CharacteristicsofMcKenzieFriendsincludedintheresearchBecauseourinterviewsamplingstrategyreliedoninformationavailableonwebsitesitexcludedMcKenzieFriendswithoutanonlineprofile,withanonlineprofilerestrictedtosocialmedia,orwhoseprofilegaveno indicationof theirbeingfee-charging.40ThisalsomeantthatwemostlyencounteredestablishedMcKenzieFriends,thoughword-of-mouthreferralsdidenableusto interviewtworecententrantstothis lineofwork.Ingenerating our initial list of potential interviewees, we selected to reflect a range ofpublished fee levels and a range of geographical locations (this was difficult as asubstantialmajority of fee-chargingMcKenzie Friends appear to be based in Londonand theSouthEast).Wealso took steps toensure that the sampleof20 freestandingintervieweesreflecteddiversityinrelationtothecharacteristicsdisplayedinthetablebelow. We did not, of course, have any control over the characteristics of the fourMcKenzieFriendsinterviewedfollowingobservationofacourthearing.Table1:CharacteristicsofinterviewedMcKenzieFriendsRelevantqualificationorexperience41 11Personalexperienceoffamilycourtcases 11LinkwithFamiliesNeedFathersorsimilargroup 10SocietyofProfessionalMcKenzieFriendsmember 5Male 13Female 11Totalnumberinterviewed 24Women are probably over-represented in this sample compared to the population ofMcKenzieFriendsas awhole.Manyof thoseoperatingona less consistent andmoretransientbasisthanthosewithstrongwebprofileswhofeatureinoursampleappeartoworkthroughFamiliesNeedFathersandothersupportgroupsthatprimarilysupportfathers. It therefore seems likely that the ‘invisible’ population is disproportionatelymale.

39SolicitorsRegulationAuthoritydataavailablehere:https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/how-we-work/reports/data/population_solicitors.page40WedidinterviewoneMcKenzieFriendwithonlyasocialmediapresence.Theyheardaboutthestudythroughword-of-mouthandtheyapproachedustoparticipateinthestudy.41SeeTable2,below,forourdefinitionof‘relevantqualification’.

16

There is room for much debate over what constitutes a ‘relevant qualification’ or‘relevantexperience’foraMcKenzieFriend.Theclassificationweadoptedisreflectedinthetablebelow.Table2:RelevantqualificationsreportedbyinterviewedMcKenzieFriendsExperiencedsolicitor 2Experiencedmediator 1CharteredLegalExecutive 1Experiencedparalegal(familylaw) 1Legal Practice Course (LPC) but notrainingcontract

1

Bar Vocational Course (BVC) but nopupillage

2

Lawdegree(GDL,LLM,orLLB)42 3Itwasnotable thateachof theprofessionallyqualifiedMcKenzieFriendswere female(solicitors, mediator and legal executive). When we initially searched for McKenzieFriendstointerview,allthosewefoundwhowereformersolicitorswerefemale.We additionally interviewed two individuals who said they were part way throughcompletingalawdegree,twowhosaidtheyhadpartiallycompletedtrainingtobecomea Chartered Legal Executive and two who reported taking CPD courses with theInstitute of Paralegals. In our view, none of these things is sufficient to demonstrate,withoutmore,thatconfidencecouldbeplacedintheMcKenzieFriend’sabilitytogivesoundlegaladviceand/orinformedguidanceonthelegalprocess.43As discussed in chapter one, the free-standing intervieweeswere purposively chosenbecause they advertised themselves as undertaking family law work. Many in oursample focused exclusively on private law parenting disputes.44 However, a goodproportion of intervieweeswerewilling to take on finance cases, as well as the oddTOLATA45case.

2.2Atypologyoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsAs has been recognised in previous publications, McKenzie Friends are not ahomogenous group.46 The Legal Services Consumer Panel identified four types: i.friend/family member; ii. voluntary supporter; iii. paid traditional role; iv. paidextendedrole.47Thistypologytellsuslittleaboutthenatureordiversityoftheprofilesofindividualsfallingintothelattertwocategories.Thedetailedreportsonbackgroundandmotivationsthatourin-depthMcKenzieFriendinterviewsprovidedenabledusto42Respectively:GraduateDiplomainLaw;postgraduateMastersdegreeinLaw;andundergraduateBachelorsdegreeinLaw.43Thisisalsolikelytobetrueofthosewhoholdalawdegreebuthavenoprofessionaltrainingorexperienceandweareambivalentaboutwhetherthiscategoryshouldfeatureatallintable2.44ThetendencytospecializeonsuchcaseswasalsonotedbytheLSCP,above,n5,para3.10.45TrustsofLandandAppointmentofTrusteesAct1996.46CivilJusticeCouncil(2011),aboven9,chapter11,p5347Above,n5,para1.4

17

movebeyondthedescriptivecharacteristicsofMcKenzieFriendsthatarepresentedintables1and2above.Analysisoftheinterviewdatasuggeststhatallourintervieweesfallintooneormoreofthefollowingcategories:

i. Thebusinessopportunistii. Theredirectedspecialistiii. ThegoodSamaritaniv. Thefamilyjusticecrusaderv. The‘rogue’

InanindicationthatthemotivationsofMcKenzieFriendscanberathermorenuancedthan is sometimes supposed, these categories proved not to bemutually exclusive –indeed,mostofourintervieweescouldbealignedwithatleasttwoofthefirstfour.Wehavelistedtheminorderoftheirprevalenceamongoursample,withthefirstcategoryapplyingtoalmosteveryinterviewee.Bycontrast,thelattercateogrywasnotobviouslyapplicabletoanyofourintervieweesbutdidfeatureonceinourobservationsample,aswellasinanecdotespresentedbyourinterviewsample.

2.1.1.ThebusinessopportunistFor thebusinessopportunist,workingasa fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendoffers somekeyadvantages:noentry requirements, trainingorqualificationsare required; set-upcostsare limitedtonon-existent(working fromhomeispossibleandcostsassociatedwith professional indemnity insurance and registration with the InformationCommissioner are only compulsory if the individual joins the Society of ProfessionalMcKenzieFriends);andtheworkbringsfewrisksforthem.Almostall theMcKenzieFriends inoursamplemadestatementssuggesting that theirmovementintothisareaofworkwasatleastpartlymotivatedbytheirrecognitionofabusiness opportunity. This included some of thosewho had been through the familyjustice process themselves. This interviewee, for example, initially assisted LiPsvoluntarily after their own experience but became a fee-charging McKenzie Friendhavingrealisedthattheycouldmakemoneyfromthework:

Therearethousandsandthousandsandthousandsofpeopleandthereare-andit’s anastonishingamountofpeople. Sowe set itupas aproper companyandthere is fourofus in theofficeandweuseat least adozendifferentMcKenzieFriends(ObservationlinkedMcKenzieFriendinterview)

Illustrating a similarly entrepreneurialmindset, a small number ofMcKenzie FriendswithinthesampledescribedplansforthegrowthoftheirMcKenzieFriendbusiness,forexample,throughtheestablishmentofanetworkofaffiliatedMcKenzieFriends.Also of note were those who identified fee-charging McKenzie Friend work as analternative path to a legal career because they were unable to obtain a pupillage,trainingcontractorcompletetheirlegalexecutivetraining.Inoneinstancethough,thistypeorworkwasviewedasausefulstepping-stonetobecomingafully-fledgedsolicitoror barrister. Others with prior legal experience demonstrated that the business‘opportunity’rationaleismorenuancedthanitmightfirstappear.Thislineofworkwas

18

seenasprovidinganopportunity to fit inwithintheirpersonal livesandtheneedsoftheirfamily:

Iwantedtohaveabitmorekindofautonomybecause,youknow,it’sthatclassicthingwhereIhavegotlike[family]whoneedme,youknowthingslikethatandsittingsortof,youknow,beingstuckbehindadeskalldayinafirmofsolicitorskind of wasn’t really working for me on a personal level. (McKenzie Friendinterview)

Itwasalsoapositiveopportunitytoprovideaffordablelegaladviceflexibly,withouttheconstraintsofaformalbusinessstructure:

Ididn’twanttoatthispointinmylife…Ididn’twanttobesortofsettingupinanofficewith, youknow,kindofphotocopying leasesandpossiblyadmin staffandthenlocumsforwhenIgoonholiday…Ihavebeensortofinthatsituation,albeitnotasasolepractitioner,formanyyears,anditjustkindofwasn’tworkingforme,orforclientsinmyperception.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

2.1.2.TheredirectedspecialistWeareawareofanecdotalstoriesofsolicitorswhohavebeen‘struckoff’settingupasfee-chargingMcKenzieFriends.48Wedidnot comeacross this.49Whatwedid find, asillustratedintable2,above,wasacollectionofhighly-experiencedformerprofessionals(family lawsolicitors, a legalexecutive,anda familymediator, eachwithmanyyears’experience)who,foravarietyofreasons,hadmovedintounregulatedMcKenzieFriendwork.So why had these professionals moved into this work? One of the non-practisinglawyers had become disenchanted with the lack of family law employmentopportunitiesinsolicitorfirmsandasaconsequencesawtheunregulatedsectorasanopportunity touseandmaintain their legalskill-setwhilstassistingvulnerable familymemberswhocouldnotaffordtheservicesofatraditionallawyer.

The last interview Iwent for therewere75 lawyers.Theystarted interviewingmewithsomeoneelse’sCV.AtthatpointIgaveup.Andithasn’timprovedasthelocalsolicitors,Imean[firmname]forexample,theirfamilydepartmenthasjustgonedown toa four-dayweek.So there is, there isnothing.Thereareno jobs,there is no work, and I don’t think it’s going to change. But there is a need.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Inawaywhatisbeingdescribedhereisrecognitionofabusinessopportunityinlightoflack of opportunities in the regulated legal services sector, and some of the otherredirectedspecialistsappearedtobesimilarlymotivated.Butfrustrationatunmetlegal

48TheLSCPreportalsomadereferencetotheseanecdotes,butthey,likeus,didnotfindanyevidenceofstruck-offlawyersactingasMcKenzieFriends.(Above,n5,para1.11)49ThisdoesnotmeanthattherearenoexamplesofpractitionersworkingasMcKenzieFriendsinquestionablecircumstances.Inonerecentcase,disciplinaryactionagainstasolicitorforinappropriatelyactingasapaidMcKenzieFriendwasupheld.BallardvSolicitors’RegulationAuthority[2017]EWHC164(Admin).

19

need is also revealed to be a factor in the quote, as it was for another redirectedspecialist:

IwantedtopracticeasasolicitorstillbutIwantedtosetupabusinessthatmadeit affordable to ordinary people. And I looked into setting up as a solicitor butunfortunately the extent of the regulationmeans that the insurance premiumsare so high that I couldn’t bring the hourly rate down to a level that made itaffordableforpeople.Sotheonlywayformetodeliverthisaccesstojusticeinanaffordableway,was to do it thisway, by giving upmy practice certificate andactingasaprofessionalMcKenzieFriend.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Thisexplanationhasatouchofthe‘goodSamaritan’category(discussedbelow)aboutit, and this was reinforced by description of disillusionment with the nature ofprofessionallegalwork,inparticularchargingpractices.Theintervieweesaidthattheyhadbecomeacutelyawareofamajordisconnectbetweenwhattheywantedtoofferasa lawyer, what clients could afford and what they felt comfortable charging, ascomparedwiththehighhourlyfeesandassociatedchargingpracticesinsomefirms.50The redirected specialists then, could each be aligned with other categories in ourtypologybutasanapparentlygrowingcategory (anumberofnon-practisingsolicitorMcKenzieFriendscannowbe foundonline) theyareworthyofmention in theirownright.

2.1.3.GoodSamaritanA ‘goodSamaritan’McKenzieFriendappeared substantiallymotivatedby concern forthewelfareandwell-beingoftheclient.Unsurprisingly,manyofourintervieweesmadecomments that suggested they were altruistically motivated. We only included aninterviewee in thiscategorythough ifespousedempathywith theneedsand financialconstraints of some LiPs reportedlymanifested itself in charging practices, e.g. if theintervieweedidsomeworkforfreeorsettheirfeesataverylowlevelintheinterestsofaffordabilityforlowincomelitigants.One non-practising (and apparently very successful) solicitor suggested that theirincome as a McKenzie Friend was two-thirds less than that which they previouslyenjoyedasafull-timesolicitor:

I am happywhat I’m earning but certainly it wouldn’t sustain a lawyer atmylevel,youknowwhenIwasworkingbefore.ButIamalothappier,theclientsarehappierandIfeelthatIamdoingwhatIsetouttodo20yearsagowhenIwantedtobecomealawyer,whichistohelppeople…I’vehadtomakecutbacksmyselfinmylifestylebutthat’sachoiceImade(McKenzieFriendinterview)

This individual also indicated that they would only work for clients who could notaffordtheservicesofsolicitors.

50Seefurtherdiscussiononthispointbelow,section2.3.3.

20

WeinterviewedacoupleofMcKenzieFriendswhoappearedtochargeonlyforpartsoftheirwork, or at a very low rate sufficient to enable them to get by on a very basicincome:Occasionally Iwillget, Igetdonations,people justsay ‘thanksverymuch,can Imakeadonation?’…SoIdon’tneed-Igetmychildbenefit,Igetmytaxcredits,and I do charge for little bits of things: photocopying, for putting bundlestogether.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Again, this individualexhibitedothermotivations too; theirdesire tohelppeoplewaspartlydrivenbyaperceivedneedtocombatbiasinthefamilycourts.Butthepointhereisthatbeingagenda-drivendoesnotnecessarilyequatetobeingunscrupulous–quitethecontraryinsomecases.Onefurtherintervieweeexplainedthat,havingbeenthroughadivorcethemselvesandhadaverygoodsolicitor,theywereaskedtohelpoutinsomeoneelse’sprivatefamilylawdispute.Thisexperienceopened theireyes to thepotential injustices incurredbytheabsenceoflegalaid,particularlyforthosewithlearningdifficultiesormentalhealthissues,andledtothedecisiontoworkprovidingsupportforthoseinthatsituation.

2.1.4.TheFamilyJusticeCrusaderExisting research suggests that many McKenzie Friends decide to take up the rolefollowing their ‘own negative experience of courts during divorce or child contact.’51Ourresearchsupportsthisfindingtosomeextentbutouranalysissuggestedthatnotallofthosewithpersonalexperienceofthelegalsystemwillbecomeacrusaderfortheirparticularversionoffamily‘justice’. Asalreadynoted,somesimplycapitaliseontheirexperience by converting it into a business opportunity, whereas others provideservices at a low fee out of a desire to support others as ‘good Samaritans’. In fact,althoughthereisalotofconcernabout‘agenda-driven’McKenzieFriendsonlyasmallproportion of interviewees made comments that suggested they were even partlyagenda-driven – fewer than we classified, according to stringent criteria, as ‘goodSamaritans’.Assuchitseemsthat,whilepersonalexperiencemightwellbeacommongateway to working as a McKenzie Friend, it does not necessarily characterise theapproachtopractice.Personalexperienceof theMcKenzieFriendswithin thestudyvaried, includingdirectexperience of private family law proceedings as a party or vicarious experience as aparent or partner of an adult party, and experience of being a party to public lawChildrenAct proceedings.One of the few examples of a person involved in the studypresentingasa‘crusader’wasaLiPclientintervieweewhobecameaMcKenzieFriendas a consequence of their experience in the family court. This interviewee expressedangeraboutthesystemduringtheinterviewwhilstapparentlybeingawareoftheneedtoappearreasonableincourt.Thisishighlightedbythefollowingtwoquotes:

Thelawitselfisabsolutelyirrelevant,knowledgeofthelawisirrelevantbecausetheonly thing thatmakesadifference ishowthat judge feelsaboutyou,and if

51LSCP,above,n5,p3andpara3.5.

21

thatjudgetakesadisliketoyou…ajudgewilljustmakeadecisionbasedontheirownprejudice.(T)he other thing I’ve learnt because I’ve gone into court now helping otherpeopleandtheysay,andthey’vegotpagesfullofcrap,andIsaid“no,we’renotgoing to do any of that, you’re just going to say you’re going toworkwith themothertoseethechildren,this istheparentingplan,that’swhatwewant.Andjuststicktothefacts,don’tsayanythingnegative,don’tlookather,pickaspotonthewall,don’t loseyourtemper,youknowdon’tshowanyemotionsandneversayyouloveyourchildrenbecausethat’sanemotionalresponseandthejudgeisgoing to knock you down because you show emotion”. (McKenzie Friendinterview)

ThesequotesarereminiscentofresearchbyMelville,whofoundacontrastbetweenthe‘private’demeanourofseveralMcKenzieFriendslinkedwithfathers’rightsgroupsonsocial media (including statements attacking mothers and the family court) and themoretemperateandchild-focusedlanguageusedontheirownwebsites.52Many McKenzie Friends presented as highly child-centred, but a couple from oursample simultaneously exhibited negative perceptions of the family justice system,particularlylawyers,Cafcassofficersandmagistrates.ThefollowingisanexampleofaMcKenzie Friend who presented as child-centred but maintained the familiarstereotypesaboutactorswithinthesystem:

Because you see you get somemagistrates and particularly clerks to the courtandthatwhomightwanttogivefatherakickingandit’sabitofapleasuretheyget,thenervouslitigantfather.(ObservationlinkedMcKenzieFriendinterview)

2.1.5.The‘rogue’ThistypeofMcKenzieFriend,whounscrupulouslyexploitsclientsforpersonalgainorotherwise engages in wholly inappropriate conduct is at the extreme end of thespectrum.We saw limited evidence of rogueMcKenzie Friends in our study.We didobserve one case hearing involving a fee-charging McKenzie Friend who we wouldclassifyunderthisheading.WedidsobecauseaspectsoftheMcKenzieFriend’sconductweredemonstrablywhollyinappropriateinthecontextoffamilylawproceedings,andat odds with the role of a McKenzie Friend – even allowing for the fact that (as wediscuss later inthisreport)fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsoftenperformanextendedrole. It was also clear theMcKenzie Friend’s conduct had at certain points impactednegatively on the trajectory of the proceedings and on the other party, who wasunrepresented at thematerial times. During the course of the hearing observed, theotherpartycomplainedbitterlyabouttheconductoftheMcKenzieFriendinquestion,referringtothemashavingengagedinabusivebehaviourandperpetuatedlies,andalsocharacterizingtheinvolvementoftheMcKenzieFriendinthecaseas‘lethal’.53

52AMelville,‘Givinghopetofathers’:discursiveconstructionsoffamiliesandfamilylawbyMcKenzieFriendsassociatedwithFathers’RightsGroups’(2017)InternationalJournalofLaw,PolicyandtheFamily1-27.53Furtherdetailregardingthiscaseisomittedfromthereportinghereinordertoprotecttheanonymityofthevariousplayersinvolved.

22

Although we encountered limited direct evidence of the ‘rogue’, several McKenzieFriendsinoursamplespokeofencounteringsome:

I have acquired a couple of clients from another McKenzie Friend. £600 theywould charge for a hearing and I just thought this is so obscene … someonecouldn’t afford [MF] because she had [MF] for one hearing and then I can’tremember how she found out aboutme but shewantedme to have the notesfromthefirsthearingand[MF]saidtoherthatitwouldbe£150.Soshepaidand[MF]emailedmethenotesand itwasapageandahalfofrubbishthat Ididn’tneedbecauseshe’dsentmetheorderanywayanditwas justshockinglyawful.(McKenzieFriendinterview)I’vehadoneguyringmeuptellingmethathegaveaMcKenzieFriendathousandpoundsand theMcKenzieFriendneverdidanywork forhim, justdisappearedoffintotheether.YouknownowthatMcKenzieFriend,iftheywereonacentralregistertheyjustcouldhavebeenwrittento,whentheydidn’trespondjusthadtheirregistrationcancelled.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

We note further that a couple of our client interviewees mentioned unsatisfactoryexperiences,althoughhowfartheyrelatedto ‘rogue’McKenzieFriends,asopposedtopoorlevelsofpracticeorknowledgewasdifficulttodiscern.Ourresearchdatasuggestthat,althoughtherogueMcKenzieFriendsdominatethelegaland non-legal press,54 they are aminority concern. Nonetheless,we are conscious ofcontextual information indicating that they are a concern that cannot be discountedaltogether.When conducting an initial online search for potential participants in thisstudy,wefoundreferencestooneindividualwhohadaconvictionforsexoffencesandtherewas one high-profile conviction of a paidMcKenzie Friend for fraud in the lifecourseofthestudy,55aswellasaconvictionforasolicitorfoundtobeactinglessthancandidlyasaMcKenzieFriend.56OneMcKenzieFriendwaswidelycastigatedonsocialmedia foradvertising services tovictimsofdomesticviolencewhocouldnotaffordalawyerbutfailingtoindicatethatlegalaidshouldbeavailabletosuchvictims.Thisisahigh rate of issues for such a small population. Add to that further reported andunreported cases that have highlighted bad McKenzie Friend behaviour57 and wesuggest that thiswork is particularly vulnerable to exploitative opportunistswith noregulatorybody,noprofessionalcodeorscrutiny,andpotentiallynoset-upcosts.

54See,forexample,‘Newsfocus:MyMcKenziefriendnightmare’,LawSocietyGazette,21/11/2016,availableat:https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news-focus/news-focus-my-mckenzie-friend-nightmare/5058870.article.SeealsotheVictoriaDerbyshireProgrammewhichfeaturedclientsofa‘rogue’McKenzieFriendwhowasimprisonedin2016.Thisprogrammefirstairedon13thFebruary2017:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-3891237855TheDavidBrightcase,seehttps://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/mckenzie-friend-jailed-for-deceit-in-family-court/5058352.article56Above,n49.57ReBaggaley[2015]EWHC1496(Fam),OystonvRagozzino[2015]EWHC2322(QB).Seealsotheunreported2015caseinwhichafee-chargingMcKenzieFriendwasimprisonedforthreeyearsafterpleadingguiltyto15countsoffraudbyfalserepresentation:https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/mckenzie-friend-jailed-for-5000-fraud-scheme/5050653.article.

23

2.3BusinessPracticesofMcKenzieFriendsWe found great variation in the business practices and procedures reported by theMcKenzieFriendswe interviewed.Muchof thatvariation is tobeexpectedgiven thatpaidMcKenzieFriendsarenotunitedundertheumbrellaofanyparticularprofessionalframework or organisation. However, much of what we heard was concerning andindicatedaneedforfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendstopaycloserattentiontotheneedforadministrativeproceduresandbusinessstandardsthatarecapableofsafeguardingtheirownandtheirclients’interests.

2.3.1BusinessstructuresThe most common business structure we found was individual McKenzie Friendsworkingontheirownassoletraders.Approximatelyhalfofthoseinterviewedindicatedthattheyweresetupinthisway.Mostofthoseappearedtobetradingundertheirownname, but there were a small number who used trading names, which included theword‘law’or‘legal’,todenotethattheywereprovidinglegalservices.Approximatelyaquarterhadsetupa limitedcompanythroughwhichtheirMcKenzieFriendservices(andsometimesotherservices)wereprovided.Inthemain,thosewhohaddonesoappearedtobethesoledirectorandshareholderintheircompany.Again,severalofthecompanynamesusedindicatedinvolvementintheprovisionoffamilylawservices.The business set ups of the remainder were varied. They included a partnershipbetweentwoMcKenzieFriends,andanotherscenarioinwhichthereweretwoworkingtogetherandtherewasacompanyinvolved.AthirdsetupinvolvedwhatappearedtobeafairlyinformalnetworkofMcKenzieFriends;atanearlierpointintimetherehadbeenalimitedcompanyinvolvedhere,whichwasdescribedasnowdormant.Amongthevariousbusinessstructures,includingamongsoletraders,thereweresomeMcKenzieFriendswhoindicatedthattheyemployedorotherwisepaidsomeoneelsetoprovideadministrativeand/ortechnicalsupport,buttheywereasmallminority.Atthetimeofthestudy,detailsofthedormantcompanynotedabovestillappearedontherelevantwebsite,butonthewhole,therewasnothingintheinterviewstosuggestthatclientsoftheseMcKenzieFriendswouldnotknow,intermsoflegalstatus,whethertheyweredealingwithanindividual,partnershiporlimitedcompany.Nevertheless,thevarietyofbusinessstructuresadoptedbyMcKenzieFriends,andthelegalimplicationsof those,doeshighlight theneedfortransparency forclientsas towho isaccountablefortheservicesprovidedunderfee-chargingarrangements.58The Society of ProfessionalMcKenzie Friends (SPMF)was founded in 2014 as a self-regulating trade organisation. As yet we have no information indicating levels ofawareness of the SPMF, either among McKenzie Friends themselves or the generalpublic,orwhetheritsexistenceischallengingMcKenzieFriendstoaspiretoparticular58Asalimitedcompanyisaseparatelegalentityinlaw,thereisaneedforclarityregardingwhetheraclientisengagingthecompanyortheindividual(s)involved,andregardingwhetherifthereareproblems,clientswouldhaveanyrecourseagainstthecompanyonly,oralsoagainsttheindividual(s)personally.

24

models of practice. The SPMF currently lists 19members,59 thus representing only aproportionoftheMcKenzieFriendswhocanbefoundadvertisingfee-basedservicesforprivatefamilyproceedingsonline.The SPMFwas established in response to LSCP recommendationsmade in 2014.Wesaw someevidence that it hasnot yet establishedhigh-reputational status across theMcKenzie Friend sector, with two interviewees (who would fulfil the membershipcriteria, as far aswe could tell) suggesting they did notwant to be involved becausethey felt that not all itsmembers are credible. It appears that qualification and entryrequirements have been set at a low level.60 However, the Society does requireinsurance and registrationwith the Information Commissioner’s Office, and it has anembryoniccomplaintshandlingprocess. It istothesebusinesspractice issuesthatwenowturn.

2.3.2TermsandconditionsofbusinessAmongtheMcKenzieFriendswespoketo,attitudestowardstheneedtosupplyclientswithwritten termsand conditionsof business varied considerably.At one endof thespectrumwasonewho,notwithstandingthattheyhadoperatedonafee-chargingbasisfor several years, said that they had deliberately steered clear of producing standardtermsandconditions,becausetheyfeltthatintroducingthemwouldalterthenatureoftheirrelationshipswithclients.AtthesameendwasanotherMcKenzieFriendwhohadnotproducedtermsandconditionsbecausetheydoubtedtheirvalue.

No I don’t because you see, again, that might be a quirk to me. I don’t likecontracts particularly, I never have. I think the minute you start signing acontract you’re declaring that you don’t trust each other and I don’twork likethat,Idon’ttieanybodyintoanythingwhatsoever.IftheywantmetoassistthemIwillassist them, if theydon’twantmetoassist them, theyare free togo.Youknow, there is no terms and conditions, none whatsoever. [McKenzie Friendinterview]No, I have thought aboutdoing that, I have thought about getting them to signsome formof agreement but I don’t knowhow enforceable itwould be in lawbecause they just, there is no lawas to signing an agreementwith aMcKenzieFriendbecauseintheoryanyonecanrockupwithyouandbeaMcKenzieFriendcan’tthey?[McKenzieFriendinterview]

Bycontrast, somesaid theyhadproducedquitedetailedwritten terms; they includednon-practising lawyers, who said they had essentially incorporated the informationtheywouldhavebeenrequiredtosupplyintheirformercareer:

Sowehave tohavevery clear rules aboutwhat’s expectedof themandwhat’sexpectedofme…mytermsofbusinesshavewhatIcando,whatIcannotdoanditessentiallyissimilarinotherwaystothe…clientcareletterthatlawyerssend.

59BasedondataprovidedonthemembershipdirectorypresentedontheSPMF’swebsite(accessedon01/06/2017).Seehttp://www.mckenziefriends.directory/find%20a%20mckenzie%20friend.html60Atthetimeofwriting,theminimumlegalqualificationrequirementtobecomeamemberoftheSPMFappearstobeanA-LevelinLaw,orthreeyears’experienceasaMcKenzieFriend.

25

It’sgotmycomplaintsprocedure,it’sgotdataprotectioninthere,it’sgotthingsaboutwho their informationwill be given to…peoplewho have access to it soexceptionstotheconfidentialityrules.SoinrelationtotherestofitIstillconductmyself in accordance with the good practice that is advised bymy professionwhich is the Law Society. So I still adhere to confidentiality, I still adhere toconflict of interest, I still send out the client care letter. [McKenzie Friendinterview]

BetweenthesetwoextremeswereseveralMcKenzieFriendswhosaidtheydidprovideclientswithatleastsomewritteninformationabouthowtheyoperatedandthebasisonwhichtheycharged.Forexample:“ItellthemwhatmyroleisandItellthemwhatmyhourlyrateis.Itellthemwhatthatwouldcover.Andwhatmystandardchargewouldbe for attending a hearing.” This group also included one who said they hadincorporatedintotheirtermsandconditionsadisclaimerinrespectoftheprovisionoflegal advice. However, in one instance the provision of written information wasadmittedtobeasomewhathitandmissexercise.

Ihavesometermsandconditions.Itendto–ifI’mreallyhonest,thoseare,Ionlytendtogivethosetopeoplewhoask.[McKenzieFriendinterview]

In another instance, operating informallywithout standard termsand conditionswasidentifiedashaving ‘causedussomeissues’, leadingtheMcKenzieFriendsinvolvedtocommentthat‘weneedtotightenuponthatabitmore’and‘actuallywritesome’.

2.3.3FeestructuresTherewasmuch variation in the levels of fees charged, and the basis onwhich theywere calculated, by theMcKenzie Friends in our sample. Themainmodels identifiedwere hourly rates, fixed fees, and a combination of the two. There was one whodescribed accepting small ‘donations’ from clients rather than routinely chargingaccording to set rates.Many of the others said that theywould adapt their chargingstructures,dependingononeormoreof:thetypeofworkdone;clients’circumstances;andlocationofanycourthearingstravelledto.Wheresethourlyrateswerecited,theredidnotappeartobeatypical‘goingrate’;theyrangedfromalowof£15perhourtoahighof£90.Withinthisrange,ratesof£25,£30,£45,£50,£60,£70and£80werereported.Oneintervieweereferredtodayrates;theircharge forahalf-daywas£250.Some, thoughnotall, of thehourly rates towards thehigherendwerecitedbynon-practisingsolicitors;some,butagainbynomeansall,ofthoseatthelowerendwerechargedbyintervieweeswhowerenotfulltimeMcKenzieFriendsand/orsaidtheywerenotdependentontheworkforaliving.Approaches to fixed fees also varied. There were some examples of packages forundefendeddivorcesbutfixedfeesweremostoftendescribedinrelationtoattendanceat court hearings. Here, fees McKenzie Friends said they typically charged rangedbetween£100and£400,withsumsof£250,£300,£335,and£360inbetween.Thesesumstendedtobecitedasapplyingtofirstorinterimhearings,whichordinarilywouldbeexpected torequirenomore thanhalfadayatcourt (includingwaiting time).Thehighest sum cited was £500 for a fact-finding hearing or final hearing. In several

26

instancesthesumsquotedincludedpreparation–typicallyinitialadvice,helpingwithdrafting of applications and position statements, and the McKenzie Friend’s ownpreparationforhearings.Traveltocourttendedtobeincludedinthefixedfeewithinacertain radius of McKenzie Friends’ bases; those who were willing to travel furtherafieldsaidtheyoftenincreasedtheirfeeand/orchargedtravellingexpensesfordoingso.Anumberof intervieweessaid that theyrequiredclients toprovide fundsonaccountand,especiallywhereattendanceatcourtwasinvolved,makepaymentupfront;foroneMcKenzie Friend this was because they had “been ripped off quite a lot” and felt itnecessary to “harden up”. Some referred to their fees as being “non-refundable”,including one who said that they would not refund a fee if they attended a hearingwhichwentshort.

Soif,let’ssay,courtisadjournedthentheygeteverythingback…exceptfor£50because it’skeeping thedateavailable.… If it getsadjournedbutwe’vewaitedthreehoursincourtthenobviouslyIproportionabitofitandthengivethemthemoney, likeforwardit.Butithastobeusedforanotherhearingdate,doesthatmake sense?Or another thing. So it’s non-refundable. I say it’s non-refundablebutIwill,I’llputittowardssomethingelse.[McKenzieFriendinterview]

Incontrast,duringthecourseofobservationsatcourtweencounteredacaseinwhichafinalhearinghadbeenlistedforafulldaybutitwasnotpossibleforittogoaheadasafinalhearing;inthatinstancetheMcKenzieFriendreadilyrefundedaproportionofthefeethattheclienthadpaid.

2.3.4Professionalindemnityinsurance(PII)The five interviewees in our sample who were members of the SMPF were able toobtainPII(whichisaconditionoftheirmembership)throughcontactdetailsprovidedbytheSMPF.OtherMcKenzieFriendsreportedseekinginsurancethroughotherroutes,including companies advertising through the Institute of Paralegals. Related costs ofinsurancevariedbut themost commonsuggestions indicateda rateofapproximately£600-£700p.a.foruptoonemillionpoundsofcover.TheoccasionalMcKenzieFriendsuggestedthattheyhadrecentlybeenquotedalmostdoubletothreetimesthisamountand,asaconsequence,haddecidednottorenew(onlytwoMcKenzieFriendsreportedcurrentPII other than the SPMFmembers). Thosewho still had insurance felt that itwas important to safeguard themselves and their clients, particularly as itdifferentiated, in thewordsofone interviewee, the ‘good’McKenzieFriends from the‘cowboys’:

Ithinkthere’sonlyabouttwodozenofusthataremembersnow[oftheSPMF]and I wonder whether that actually points to the fact that, you know, somepeopleareouttherewhomaybebeingaMcKenzieFriend,don’tactuallywanttobe incurring the costs of insurance, they don’t want actually to offer a properservice,youknow,andalsothattheydidn’tmeettheminimumcriteriatojoininterms of their qualifications and their experience. ... [I]t’s so fundamentallyimportant to me that if I couldn’t have got insurance, I wouldn’t be doing it.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

27

SomeMcKenzieFriendswhodidnothaveinsurancesuggestedthattheywerewillingtoconsider it for reasons including wanting to appear as ‘professional and robust aspossible’,whilstotherswhodidnothaveinsuranceexpressedconcernovertheissueofthe label ‘professional’ insurance, when they considered that fee-charging McKenzieFriendsdonothavea‘profession’:

I’velookedatitbutIamjitterysimplybecauseofthewordprofessional.…Idon’tknow how you can be professional, if you say commercial that’s different butprofessionalrequiressomeprofessionalqualificationsanduntilsomeonecreatesthemorrecognisesthem…whenIinitiallylookeditmademejitterythatitwasblurringthelinesaboutwhatIam.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

The main reason given for not having insurance was the cost; a number expressedconcernabouttheimpactthatcompulsoryinsurancemighthaveontheabilityofpoorerLiPstoaffordtheirservicesshoulditbenecessarytopassthecostsontoclientsthroughincreasedfees.Otherreasonsgivenfornotobtaininginsuranceincluded:therewasnoneed because they were not giving legal advice; they were not storing clients’documents; theywere not conducting litigationwithin the terms of the LSA 2007 orrepresenting the litigant. InsurancewasalsoviewedasunnecessarybysomebecausetheLiPclientistechnicallyinchargeoftheirowncaseandtakesthedecisions-nottheMcKenzieFriend.Onthatanalysistherewouldbenothingtoinsureagainst.Thatsaid,challenging the need for indemnity insurance by presenting a strict and limitedinterpretationof theroleofaMcKenzieFriend ignoresoneof thekey findingsof thisresearch: thatMcKenzieFriendsundertakeavarietyof tasks,which inmostcases(asfaraswecantell) includesgivingsomeformof legaladvice(seefurtherdiscussioninchapter3).

2.3.5DataprotectionissuesWith the odd exception, most of the freestanding McKenzie Friend intervieweesappearedalerttotheneedfordataprotectionandavarietyofmeanswerereportedlyused to maintain some form of client confidentiality. These varied in sophistication,including: asking clients to keep their own paperwork; having a password protectedcomputer; shredding documentation; paying for sacks to be collected and shreddedconfidentially;notdisclosingdocumentation to thirdparties; ensuringdocumentationassociatedwithacasewasreturnedtotheLiPclientafterthecaseconcluded;orhavingsecurestorageforolderrecords.Forsometherewashazinessaroundcertaindetails, forexamplethesecurityofemailcorrespondencelinkedtomobilephonesorcloudstorage:

Wellit’sallon,it’sallonfile,allonmycomputerandIamtryingtoavoid,tryingtomove everything to sort of paper free. Imean, you know, back-up stuff andcloudstorage.I’mnotawarethatthat’sarisk,havingitall-asfarasIamaware,IamsureIwouldhaveheardaboutitonewayoranother.Ifyouwereputtingyourclients’informationatriskbyallthiscloudstoragethenIamsureIwouldbetold,I would know about it somehow, from the emails I get from the IOC [sic].(McKenzieFriendinterview)

28

The end of the quote indicates that this McKenzie Friend had registered with theInformation Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This was also true of a number of others,includingmembersandnon-membersoftheSPMF.Severalintervieweesappearednotto have considered registration with the ICO, and a couple suggested they weredeterred by the requirement to pay an annual fee for registration (which for mostbusinesseswouldbeonly£35).

2.3.6ComplaintsproceduresTheMcKenzieFriendswespoketogaveabroadrangeofresponsestoquestionsaboutcomplaints handling and procedures.Most said they had never received a complaintabout theirservices61andattributed this to their fairchargingpracticesandthegoodlevelsofserviceprovidedtotheirclients.However,amongsttheclientinterviewees,wedid come across the occasional dissatisfied individual. Additionally, in one of theobservedhearings,theotherpartyinthecasewasvehementintheirarrayofobjectionsregardingthebehaviourandstandardsdisplayedbyafee-chargingMcKenzieFriend:

I do think that McKenzie Friends should be governed and monitored andrestrictedandeithersomesortofyouknowsomesortoftestthattheyhavetogothrough and I think that they need to be answerable, I think they need to beaccountableforwhattheydobecauseyouknowespeciallyinlawandespeciallywhen dealing with family law you know it’s a massive. I have had massive,massive damage caused to my relationship with my children by mainly theinvolvement of [McKenzie Friend name]. (Observation linked interview, otherparty)

In lightof theirextremelypoorexperienceofbeingoppositea fee-chargingMcKenzieFriend,thisintervieweecommentedonalackofanofficialcomplaintsprocessandwasawarethatthereisnoregulatorybodygoverningstandardsforfee-chargingMcKenzieFriends.Movingawayfromthisatypical,albeittroublingaccount,attheotherendoftheservice spectrum, some clients who reported a positive McKenzie Friend experiencestillexpressedconcernaboutthelackofaformalcomplaintsprocess:You know, like, if you’ve got an issuewith, I don’t know, a service, a council, youknowtousetheLocalGovernmentOmbudsman.Variouskindofpublicbodies,youknowwheretogotoforthecomplaints.ForMcKenzieFriends,Idon’tthinkthey’reregulated,are they, sowhowouldyoucomplain to? (Observation linked interview,McKenzieFriendclient)

In a further interview linked to an observed case, a LiP client of a McKenzie Friendappearedveryconfidentthattheywouldknowwhattodoiftheyhadtocomplain.Theywereawarethattherewasan‘AssociationofMcKenzieFriends’(presumablytheywerereferringtotheSPMF).However,thisLiP’sMcKenzieFriendwasnotamemberoftheSPMF and therefore this complaints route was not open to this client, despite theirapparentawarenessofarelevanttradeorganisation.61ThisincludedoneMcKenzieFriendinterviewee,inrelationtowhomwelaterbecameawareofatleastonecomplaint.Ofcourse,wecannotverifywhetherthisMcKenzieFriendhadeverreceivedacomplaintdirectlyfromtheindividualwhocomplainedaboutthem,orwhetherthecomplainthadanymerit.

29

AlargeproportionoftheMcKenzieFriendsinterviewedsuggestedthatiftheyweretoreceive a complaint, they would take it upon themselves to resolve it. The range ofactions suggested included refunding the client’s money; offering a free consultationwith a McKenzie Friend colleague if a client disagreed with their advice; proposingmediation to settle the dispute; and willingness to go to court if necessary. Lessconstructively,oneintervieweedescribedensuringthatLiPclientspaidupfrontsothattheywouldbeunabletowithholdpaymentintheeventofacomplaint.PaidMcKenzie Friendswho aremembers of a tradeorganisation,whether the SPMF,theInstituteofParalegalsortheCharteredInstituteofLegalExecutives,unsurprisinglyreported that they would use that organisation’s complaints procedure if they werefacedwithacomplaint.

IamamemberoftheInstituteofParalegalssoifsomebodydidwanttocomplain-and I’mon thePPRregister, Iknow it’squitenew,but there isanavenue forpeople to take it further from me. But I’ve not had one. (McKenzie Friendinterview)

For one of the non-practising solicitor McKenzie Friends, being a member of anorganisation was important, as they wanted to give their clients the confidence thattheywerepartofa tradeassociationso that ifaclientwasunhappywith the levelofservicetheyhadsomewheretogothatwasindependent.Thisfocusonthevalueofanindependentcomplaintshandlingprocessfeaturedinonlyasmallnumberofinterviewsbutwasnotablymoreprominentamong thoseMcKenzieFriendswhohadsome legaltrainingorbackground.Whilst the Institute of Paralegals and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives dohaveindependentcomplaintsprocedures,theSPMFreportsthatinthefirstinstanceitwill investigate complaints in-house before referring the complaint to an externaladjudicator (who thiswouldbe isunclear from thewebsite) if theLiP client remainsdissatisfied.62OneSPMFmemberdidindicatediscomfortrelatedtothe‘in-house’stageof thecomplaintsprocedureandanother intervieweesuggestedthatanother ‘outside’organisation,suchas the InstituteofProfessionalParalegals,maybe ‘bettersuited’asanindependentcomplaintsauthority.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

2.3.7ObtainingclientsOneof thekeyroutes forobtainingclientsreportedbymanyof theMcKenzieFriendswasthroughwordofmouthandclientrecommendations:

Icouldsurvivenowwithjustwordofmouth,Idon’tneedtoactuallyadvertiseatall. I have somanypeople just coming tome from referrals. (McKenzie Friendinterview)

However, this was only partially reflected in the client interview data. Whilst a fewclientssuggestedthattheyheardabouttheirMcKenzieFriendthroughword-of-mouth,

62http://www.mckenziefriends.directory/service%20standards.html(accessedon03/02/2017)

30

thiswas invariablychanneled throughgroupsororganisationssuchasFamiliesNeedFathers.WeweretoldthatlocalbranchesofsuchorganisationssometimesprovidedalistofMcKenzieFriendsand/oraforuminwhichparentscoulddiscussproblemsandmakerecommendationsforothersinasimilarpositiontothemselves.

I went to a few of the Families Need Fathers meetings and asked forrecommendations.Iwasgiventhreeorfournames.Icontactedacoupleofthemand they both sounded very good. And one of themwas pretty busy and theotherwasmoreavailablesoIwentforthatone.(Clientinterview)

Unlike most of the McKenzie Friends interviewed, the clients we interviewedemphasised particular groups as the main mechanism through which they chose aMcKenzieFriend:

IfoundFamiliesNeedFathersthroughtheCitizensAdviceBureau,andtheyputme onto my local branch, which is where I met my McKenzie Friend. (Clientinterview)Well I go to theFathers4 Justicemeetingsand,yeah,and then there isalso - Iforget their name - there’s loads of information there aboutMcKenzies. (Clientinterview)

AnothergatewayidentifiedbybothMcKenzieFriendsandclientswasonlinesearches.Some clients reported searching directly for ‘McKenzie Friends’ or for ‘child accessissues’. But links with fathers’ rights/support organisations again manifestedthemselvesthroughinternetsearches:

[J]ustfoundoutvariousnames…byGoogling‘Whatdofathersdotogainaccesstotheirchildren?’andanythingthatcameup,I’dhavealookat.Yes,Iwastotallydesperate, and through the Fathers 4 Justice or the Real Fathers 4 Justice orsomething,Igot[McKenzieFriendName],somehow,bysometenuouslinkfromthere.(Clientinterview)Ijustsearchedtheinternetformen’sadviceandmen’srightsandthingslikethatandIfoundamen’scharityandthisMcKenziewasattachedtothemen’srightscharity.(Clientinterview)

AnumberoftheMcKenzieFriendsidentifiedonlinedirectoriesasarouteofreferralforclients. This is unsurprising given that our interview sample was generated usingdetails ofMcKenzie friends published on a number of directories and through onlinesearches.A small proportionof ourMcKenzieFriendand client sample reported thattheyobtainedclientsthroughsocialmedia.

2.3.8TrainingandprofessionaldevelopmentWenotedabove thatanumberofMcKenzieFriends involved in the researchheld,orwereworkingtowards,relevantqualifications.Althoughasmallnumberofthosewithrelevant qualifications were selectively sampled by us, we were surprised at thefrequencywithwhichrelevanttraininganddevelopmentopportunitieswerereportedly

31

sought and pursued by the others. A picture emerged in which many fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsarekeen to further theirknowledgeandskillsandwilling to investtimeandmoneyindoingso.The reported desire among McKenzie Friends to improve the knowledge-base fromwhichtheirservicesareprovidedisreflectedintheexistenceofanumberofbespokeMcKenzie Friend training courses that have been devised by individual McKenzieFriends.Mostofthesecoursesattractafeeanddetailsaboutsomeofthemcanbefoundeasily through an online search. A number of our interviewees had developed anddelivered,orparticipatedinbespokeMcKenzieFriendtraining.Weheardmixedviewsontheusefulnessofthecourses.Severalhadclearlyfoundthemtobeveryinformativeand thought-provoking. By contrast, one McKenzie Friend described the course theyhadattendedas‘scarilysuperficial’.Oneriskattachedtotheexistenceofbespoke ‘training’ forMcKenzieFriendsisthat itcouldgiverisetotheillusionthatthereisastandardandacceptedqualificationforthistypeofwork,asappearedtobethecaseforthisinterviewee:

TheDepartmentofWorkandPensionspaidformetogoontheMcKenzieFriendtrainingcourses…andIthenqualifiedifyoulikeonanofficialbasis…andIhavebeenusingthecertificatesfromthentoenhancemyknowledge,gointocourt,letthe court know that I am not just an inexperienced nobody. (McKenzie Friendinterview)

OneclientweinterviewedhadtakenabespokeMcKenzieFriendtrainingcoursewithaview to equipping themselves better to act as a litigant in person. That person wasconcerned that the courses might lead to an inflated sense of the knowledge andexperienceofMcKenzieFriends:

Itdidconcernmealittlebitthat…thepeopleon[thecourse]didn’thavealotofexperience on this and after the training, you know, [the trainer] was turningthemouttobeaMcKenzieFriendwhereactuallyittakesabitoftimeandittakesabitofexperienceandittakesalotofexpertise.(Clientinterview)

It is not possible for us to comment objectively on the quality of bespokeMcKenzieFriend courses. Irrespective of their quality, however, their apparent popularity isindicative of an appetite for professional organisation and development among fee-chargingMcKenzie Friends.With sufficient take-up, there is at least the potential forbespoke training to contribute to the development of amore credible image of paidMcKenzieFriendsasacohesivegroupwithdiscernablepracticenormsandstandards.InthatrespecttheprovidersofbespoketrainingareofatleastasmuchinterestastheSPMF.Onerecentlylaunchedonlineplatformforlinkinglitigantswithfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendshasoutlinedanambitionto‘provideatrainingprogrammewiththeassistanceofoneof itssupportinguniversities inLondon’. It isunclearhowcertainor imminentsuchadevelopmentisbut,shouldauniversitysupportedordeliveredprogrammecome

32

tofruition,itcouldbeagame-changerintermsofthecredibilityandutilityofbespoketraining.63

2.3.9WorkingfromhomeAsmallnumberof interviewedMcKenzieFriendsusedhiredofficespacebutthiswasverymuch theexception (and theywere thenon-practising lawyers).Themajorityofoursamplesaidtheyworkedfromhome.Someconductedmostoftheirworkbyphoneand/oremailandwouldonlymeetclientsface-to-faceatcourt(iftheyattendedcourtatall).64Mosttriedtomeetwithclientsatamutuallyconvenientlocation,thoughasmallnumberwouldalsoseeclientsattheirhomeofficeoccasionally:

Yeah it’s me so I am the head office, which I have a study in my home so ifsomeonewantsanappointment theyeither come tome inmyhomeor I go tothem.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Eventhosewithaservicedofficespacereportedbeingwillingtomeetclients‘whereversuits them’. Therefore, flexibility to the needs and affordability requirements of theclient appeared to be a key theme running through the business practices of theMcKenzieFriendsthatwespoketo:

IdoliketohavefacetofacemeetingswithpeopleifIcanbutsometimespeoplecan’tdothat…soIwouldsetupaseriesoftelephoneconferencesandwewouldspend sometimes hours,well yeahhours on the phone, talking through things.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Whilst this is an example ofMcKenzie Friends focusing on the needs of their clients,there are risks associated with this flexible and informal relationship. We heard acouple of accounts of emotionally unstable clients who were heavily reliant on theMcKenzieFriend.Intheabsenceofboundariestoestablishaprofessionalrelationship,thishas thepotential tobe troublesome.Themostsignificantriskshighlightedbytheresearchrelatedtosafety,andconcernsaroundsafetyareparticularlyacutegiventhefrequencywithwhichMcKenzieFriendsappeartoworkfromhome.Inoneveryconcerning interview,aMcKenzieFrienddescribedhavingbeenassaultedtwice during the course of their work and related worrying about the practices ofMcKenzieFriendsasaresult:

[A]lotofmaleMcKenzieFriendstosaveoncostsetceterawillmaybestaywiththeclientthenightbefore,especiallyifit’salotoftravellingandthereisalotoftravelling.SoIdidstay[inthecasebeingdiscussed]andIwassexuallyassaulted.…Ithoughtwhatareyoudoing,you’rein[placename],you’reonyourown,you

63TheambitionappearsonthewebsiteofthecontroversialMcKenzieFriendsMarketplace.TheMFMisthe brainchild of an undergraduate law student from the University ofWestminster and was initiallyreportedashavingthesupportofatleastoneuniversitythough,asfaraswecantell,thoseuniversitiesdonotappear tohave formal linkswith theplatformat the timeofwriting.MFMaimsto functionasa‘quasi regulator’ and as a gateway organisation for paid McKenzie Friend services. Seehttps://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/universities-back-mckenzie-friend-portal/5060348.article andhttps://www.mckenziemarketplace.co.uk/aboutus(lastaccessed2/6/17).64Asmallnumberofoursamplesuggestedthattheydidnotgotocourtbutuseddirectaccessbarristersforcourthearings.Seechapter4forfurtherdiscussionofthispoint.

33

knowyoureallyneed tostart thinkingaboutyoursafety.… Iwasalsosexuallyassaulted actually in [place name], in court.… [B]y a client. (McKenzie Friendinterview)

StayingovernightintheLiPclient’saccommodationwasnotanatypicaloccurrence.Inoneoftheobservedcases,thefee-chargingMcKenzieFriendcommentedthattheyhadstayedovernightattheirclient’shousethenightbeforethehearing.Whilstbothclientsand McKenzie Friends described the informality of the relationship as one of theattractive features of employing a McKenzie Friend compared with the more formalrelationshipthatasolicitormaintainswiththeirclients,thisinformalityisnotwithoutitsrisks.

2.3.10Ethicaldilemmas/issuesfortheMcKenzieFriendAnother point of interest concerned ethical boundaries within which fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsworked.Withoutformalguidelinesprovidedbyaregulatorybody,wewanted to examine the extent towhich the intervieweeswere self-regulating on thispoint.A potential conflict of interest was a feature in one of the observed cases where aMcKenzie Friend was assisting one party and it transpired that the other party hadpreviouslyattemptedtoinstructthesameMcKenzieFriend.Thematterdominatedtheearly part of the hearing, and theMcKenzie Friend subsequently withdrew from thecase. Some of the freestanding interviewee McKenzie Friends had also encounteredpotential conflict of interest issues, whilst others appreciated the administrativedifficulties in ensuring a conflict of interestdidnot arise. For example, oneMcKenzieFriendsuggestedthattheydidgetcaughtoutonceandthatasaconsequencetheyhaveconsidered,buthavenotyet implemented,ITadministrativemechanismstodealwiththeissue.Beyondconflictofinterestissues,anumberofMcKenzieFriendsinthestudysuggestedthat they were fortunate in that they can pick and choose clients. This issue camethrough in particular when some McKenzie Friends suggested that they would notassistLiPswhowerenot (as theyperceived things)acting in thechild’sbest interest.WhilstanumberofMcKenzieFriendsdidnotelaboratefurtheronthispoint,somedidand suggested that they would remove themselves from a case if a client wasobstructingcontactwithoutgoodreason.

Isignedupto,Ithinkitwastermedacodeofpracticethat[supportorganisation]produced.Now,IhavesomedifficultieswithsomeofitstermsbutIsigneduptoit togoonthe list.And,oneof thetermstoassistingasaMcKenzie friend,wasnot to assist anyonewho is obstructing contactwithout good reason, from theother parent. So, for example, if I think that to be the case then Iwon’t assistthem.Butthat’s,that’sjustachoiceIcanmake,thatunderthecabrankruleforabarrister,forexample,theydon’thavethatsortoffreedom.…AndI’minanicepositioninaway,asaMcKenziefriend,thatIcansaythat,“SorryIdon’tthinkIcan assist you anymore, I’ve tried to givewhat I think is good advice, I thinkyou’retakingthewrongtrackhere,Idon’tthinkyourapproachisreasonableorchild-centred,Idon’tfeelIcanassist”.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

34

Other reasons that McKenzie Friends gave for not feeling able to support a clientincluded: the LiP having previous criminal convictions for sexual abuse or seriousdomesticabuse;where theMcKenzieFriend felt thatacasewasbeingbroughtoutofspite andwith a sense of vengeance; if a case involved an illegalmatter; if someonefailedtogivefullandfrankdisclosureinafinancecaseand/orintendedtomisleadthecourt;orwhereaLiPisunabletomaintainconfidentialityaboutthecaseand/orpostson social media despite warnings. Crucially, most of these examples describe ethicalself-regulation by the individual McKenzie Friends. Some McKenzie Friends havethereforethoughtaboutpotentialrisksandissuesinthisregard,thoughmanywerelessconsidered.

2.4Theclientsoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriends2.4.1.Whoarethey?MorementhanwomenWhen asked about their clients, a majority of the McKenzie Friends we interviewedreportedthatmoreweremalethanfemale,withasmallnumberindicatingthatasmanyas 90% of their clients were men. This is unsurprising, given the predominantpreference forworking on private children (as opposed to finance) cases among theMcKenzieFriendswe interviewed,combinedwith theprevalenceof linkswith father-focusedsupportgroupsthatappearedtoserveindirectlyasabusinesspublicitytool.Inour efforts to recruit a sample of clients of fee-chargingMcKenzie Friends, we werecontacted by far more men than women. This to some extent confirms the genderbalance reported by the McKenzie Friend sample, though the skewed nature of ourclient sample means that it does not reliably indicate the characteristics of thepopulation.Noneofourintervieweessaidtheyworkedexclusivelyforclientsofonegenderandanumbernotedthatthegenderbalancehadshiftedinthewakeofthewithdrawaloflegalaidforprivatefamilycases:

Iwould say that it changed entirely because of LegalAid andprior to thatmyfemaleclientswereprobably5%,itwasavery,verysmallnumber.NowIwouldsaytheyareprobably60%.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Ahandfulsimilarlyfeltthattheynowworkedformorewomenthanmen,withahandfulofothersindicatingthatthegendersplitwasroughlyequal.OneconcernrelatedtothegenderbalanceoftheclientsofMcKenzieFriendsrelatestothepossibilitythatpaidMcKenzieFriendsareeffectivelymoreaccessibletomalethanfemale litigants. The links betweenmanyMcKenzie Friends and support groups thatexclusively or primarily target fathers mean that women are probably less likely toreceive a recommendation or even become aware of the existence of paidMcKenzieFriends as a source of support. This suspicionwas reinforced for the research teamwhen we discovered that most gender neutral or female-focused websites that offerinformation of relevance to a family law dispute either do not mention McKenzieFriends at all, or simply reference them as an option – often with an associated

35

caution.65 By contrast,manywebsites that are targeted atmen describe thework ofMcKenzieFriendspositivelyandprominentlyandsomeevenprovideadirectoryofpaidMcKenzieFriendsandtheircontactdetails.ArangeofincomegroupsItwasreportedthattheclientsoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriendscomefromallpartsoftheincomespectrum:

They range from cleaners up to people who are multimillionaires. (McKenzieFriendinterview)I’vejustrecentlyhelpedaclientthatearnsoverahundredgrandayearandI’verecentlyhelpedaclientthathashadallhisbenefitsstoppedsoit’sarealeclecticmix(McKenzieFriendinterview)

The fact thatmorewomenhave reportedly been seeking the services of fee-chargingMcKenzie Friends post-LASPO suggests that the client-base of some is at least partlycomposedof thoseonvery lowincomes. Inaminorityofcases, theMcKenzieFriendstoldusthattheypitchedtheirservices(andfees)atexactlythoseclients:

Thevastmajorityofworkthatwegetarefrompeoplewhohavenomoney,whoare on benefits and single mothers, single fathers, people who are disabled,people who have got all sorts of other issues, mental health issues, seriousillnesses – theyhavenomoney, sohowyou can charge them is reallydifficult,theyhavecometoseeaMcKenzieFriendbecausetheycan’taffordasolicitorandthey can’t get LegalAid. (McKenzieFriend interview–only accepts ‘donations’andexpenses)

Suchaltruismwasnotalwaysinevidence,however.Oneintervieweereportedthattheydidnotusuallyacceptclientsinreceiptofbenefitsbecause“theyusuallycan’tpayatallso itwouldonlybe if I can give themadviceover thephoneor informationover thephoneyouknow”.Ofcourse,thehourly,orperhearing,feeschargedbymanyMcKenzieFriendswespoketoaresuchthatmanywouldbeoutofreachtothepoorestlitigants.This is reflected in a number of the client interviews who reported spending manythousandsofpoundsonlawyers’servicespriortoengagingtheirMcKenzieFriend.

Ispentsomethinglike£27,000onasolicitorandhekepttellingmethathewastrying to keepmy costs downbutwe didn’t seem to be getting anywhere so Ieventuallygotridofmysolicitor.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Theimpressionweobtainedthroughinterviewswasthatmostworkisdoneforclientsonmiddleincomes,i.e.thosewhocouldnotaffordtospendthousandsonlegalservicesbut would have been above the threshold for receiving legal aid pre-LASPO. Fromwithin thatcohortoneMcKenzieFrienddescribedapolicyofonlyrepresenting thosewhocouldnotaffordalawyer:

65ExamplesofwebsiteswecheckedincludeWomen’sAid,GingerbreadandOnePlusOne.

36

Alotofthesepeoplehavenowheretogo.Theyarecaughtbetweenrepresentingthemselves and navigating a really complex legal process, or bankruptingthemselves and credit cards, anda lotof themcan’t evendo thatbecause theyhavenofundsatall.SoImadeitsoclearthatonthewholeitwasaserviceforpeoplewhoreallyhavenowhereelsetogoandthat’sessentiallywhoIworkfor.Ihave turnedaway, in twoyears, about20 clientson thebasis that they clearlyhavethefundsandthenIsentthemto[lawfirm].(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Thatsaid, thesame intervieweenotedthatclientswithextremely low incomeswouldstillbeunabletoaffordtheirservices.ArangeofbackgroundsandabilitiesThe McKenzie Friends we interviewed reported a wide spectrum of abilities amongtheirclients.Atthemoreneedyend,theynotedthat:

[S]omepeople,theycan’tactuallyreadorwrite,they’refunctionallyilliterateandthat’snotnecessarilypeopleonbenefits,that’speoplequitealotfurtherupthesocio-economicscale…[others]canreadabook,theycanfillinaform,butthat’scompletely different to being under emotional stress and having to create astatement or express what happened in a logical structured way. (McKenzieFriendinterview)

Several of the McKenzie Friends we interviewed commented that they saw asurprisingly high proportion of clients with particular needs or vulnerabilities,includingmentalhealth issues, learningdifficultiesandphysicaldisabilities.However,consistentwiththediverserangeofincomesthatMcKenzieFriendsreported,theyalsosuggestedthatsomeclientswerehighlyeducatedandskilled:

95%ofthemarereallycapable.ImeanIamastonishedathowbrightandcleverthesepeopleare-anditdoesn’tdependontheireducationortheirbackground,they are very, very clever. So a lot of them do not need handholding, or to betaken over, they just need information and direction and then know they cancomeback and it’s not going to cost theman armand a leg. (McKenzie Friendinterview)

2.4.2ReportedreasonsforusinguseMcKenzieFriends?CheaperthanlawyersAnecdotally, concerns are often expressed aboutMcKenzie Friends charging fees thatare the equivalent of those that might be charged by qualified and regulatedprofessionals,namely junior solicitors anddirect accessbarristers. It certainly is truethattheadvertisedratesofsomeMcKenzieFriendslookhigh.However,thecombinedreports of the clients and the McKenzie Friends that we interviewed, suggest thatconcernonthispointmaybeoverstated. Inpractice, itappearsthatthewayinwhichMcKenzieFriendscalculatetheirfeesareoftendifferentfromthechargingpracticesofmost solicitors, resulting in overall costs to their clients that may make themconsiderablycheaperthanmanylawyers.

37

By far themost striking findings in relation to the cost of McKenzie Friend servicescame from our client interviews. A majority had used lawyers at some point beforedecidingtouseaMcKenzieFriendandweaskedclientstorecalltheamounttheyhadpaidtobothlawyersandtotheirMcKenzieFriend.Thereporteddifferenceswerestark.In the case of two interviewees who had been involved in protracted proceedingsinvolvingchildren,financeanddomesticviolenceissues,thelawyerfeeswerereportedtobetentimestheMcKenzieFriendfees(£20,000onlawyersand£2,000onMcKenzieFriends;£40,000onlawyersand£4,000onMcKenzieFriend).Inboththoseinstancesitsounded as though the McKenzie Friend had been involved for as long, and inconnection with as many hearings, as the lawyer. A large number of the McKenzieFriendswe interviewed described similar instances of clients having exhausted theirresourcesbyspendingtensofthousandsonlawyersbeforeseekingouttheirservices.Forthemostpart,thetotalamountthatclientsreportedspendingonaMcKenzieFriendfell below £1,000 and in several instances that covered support at more than onehearingtogetherwithallassociatedpreparationandpaperwork.Indeed,fortheclientswespoke to, thevalueof theMcKenzieFriend inmonetary termscorrelatedstronglywiththevolumeofworkthatwasdoneforeveryhourthattheywerebilledfor:

Thesolicitorwas£150anhour,Ithink,andfor[McKenzieFriend]itwasaboutathirdofthatattheverymost.Ithink[McKenzieFriend]wasabout£40plusVAT.Idon’tknowifVATwasincluded,butabout£40orsomething,andIreallydidgetbundlesofe-mailsforabout£40.(Clientinterview)I think it was about four hundred and something. It was around that sort ofmark, whereas we’d already paid out a thousand for nothing done by thesolicitor. AndtheMcKenzieFriend, literally,because Iwantedtoget thiscourtbundleright, Iwase-mailing themandphoning themvirtuallyonadailybasis,andtheyalwaysresponded.(Clientinterview)

Ofcourse,ourclientsamplewasskewedinfavourofthosewithapositiveexperienceofusingaMcKenzieFriend,66whichmeans that, if less client-friendlychargingpracticesexist among McKenzie Friends, we were unlikely to hear about them. We note alsorecentresearchcommissionedbytheSolicitorsRegulationAuthoritywhichfoundthatwhilstovertwo-thirdsofconsumersinasurveyreportedsolicitorscostsinfamilylawcasestobeaffordable,31%foundsolicitor’scosts‘difficulttomanage’.67Nevertheless,the extent towhich the reports of almost all theMcKenzieFriends and clients inoursamplewereinharmonyinrelationtotherapidanddramaticescalationofbillsfortheservices of lawyers was concerning and there seems little doubt that the McKenzieFriendsprovedsubstantiallycheaperforourclientsample.Flexible,availableandinformalWhilst affordabilityemergedasakey issue surrounding litigants inperson rationalesfor choosing a fee-charging McKenzie Friend, it was not the only reason provided.Perceptions of the flexibility and availability of the fee-chargingMcKenzie Friend, as66Seediscussionaboveatsection1.2.2.67Ecorys,Experiencesofconsumerswhomaybevulnerableinfamilylaw:AresearchreportfortheSolicitorsRegulationAuthority(2017),p31.Availableat:http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/how-we-work/reports/vulnerable-consumers.page

38

well as the informalityof theworking relationshipbetweenMcKenzieFriendandLiPclientwereveryapparent.McKenzieFriendssuggestedthattheywereabletomeetanddiscuss caseswith clients outside of normal office hours - providing a servicewhichgoesbeyond,andiscompletelydifferenttothatprovidedwithinthenecessaryboundsoftheformalrelationshipbetweensolicitorandclient:

[I]t’sanentirelyflexiblethingastowhatsuitsthem[theclient].AndIamhappytomeetwithpeople,youknow,sortofearlyeveningaswellbecauseobviouslyit’snotalwayseasyforpeopletogetoutofworktogotoseeatraditionalfirmofsolicitorsintheirhours…IhaveevenmetclientsonSundaysbefore,youknow,butthat’skindof,kindofthe,Isuppose,theprincipleofit.AndwhatI’mtryingandhopefullyachieving is for it tobeakindofmuchmoreuser-friendly thing.(McKenzieFriendinterview)My clients can phone me up at 11 o’clock at night and say [name] I’ve got aproblem. I haven’t got a problem with that at all. That makes us so moreaccessible than a solicitor. It also means that I don’t have to put on airs andgraces, Idon’t talktomyclientsas if Iamsomesortof“DearMr[name]…”, it’slike, “lookmate,what the fuck have you done?” You know, I can have a reallyhonest, down the pub conversation with both women and men which breaksdownboundariesandgetsthingsdone.AndIdon’tthinksolicitorscancompetewiththeflexibilitywhichmakesusreallyeffective.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Respondingtocalls, textsandemails lateatnightandonweekendsorduringholidayperiods, responding tomultiple emails and phone calls, and the lack of formal officehours were all elements of the informal and flexible arrangements that McKenzieFriendspridedthemselvesonandLiPclientsappreciated:

[E]ach time I sent an email hewould respond literally the nextmorning…Theemotionalsupport-whereasdirectaccessbarristerandthesolicitorjustweren’tinterested, they were just interested in facts and what the law is… From theemotional side of things so actually he understood where I was coming from.(Clientinterview)Heisyourmateaswellas,youknow,soattheendofthedayyougoyouknowyougotothepubafterwardsandyouhaveadrinkandyougo,youknowandyoucanjustletitalloutproperly.(Clientinterview)

The experience is empowering for some, providing clients with the opportunity tomaintaincontroloftheirowncase:

ThemoneyIinvestedwith[McKenzieFriend]ultimatelyhassetmeupwiththeright level of knowledge to manage my own case all the way through. So[McKenzieFriend]helpedmesetup forcourt for the firstcoupleofgoes that IwentandwhathaveyoubutthenI’vetakenallthestuffthatheshowedmeandI’vejustputthatintopracticemyself…I’vesortofbeengoinginandoutofcourteven without [McKenzie Friend] I have done the self-same position statementandjustchoppedandchangedsomeofthewording.(Clientinterview)

39

Inthisrespect,severalofourMcKenzieFriendintervieweesstressedthattheirservicesweredistinguishablefromthoseusuallyprovidedbyasolicitororbarrister:

IthinkthebigillusionIhear,especiallyfromthesolicitors,isthatpeopleuseusbecausetheycan’taffordalegalprofessionalbutwegetalotofpeoplecometouswhosaytheydon’twanttousealegalprofessional.Wegetquiteafewclientswhocouldeasilyaffordareallytopsolicitorthatuseusinstead.…Wespeaktoalotofpeopleandtheysaythattheyusedasolicitorinthepastandtheythoughttheyweren’tdrivingtheirowncasesandfeltthattheywouldbesittingthereandtheirbarristerwouldbe speakingbefore the courtand they’dbewanting theirbarrister to say something entirely different and they felt ignored. (McKenzieFriendinterview)

Committedtoacase/anallyHavingasharedidentity,oraffinity,withaMcKenzieFriendwasreportedbyLiPclientsasafactorinfluencingtheirdecisiontouseaMcKenzieFriendratherthanasolicitor.Asidentifiedearlier,groupssuchasFamiliesNeedFathersoftenappeartoplayakeyrolein developing links betweenprospective clients and theirMcKenzie Friends,whetherthroughprovisionof onlinedirectories anddiscussion forums, or face-to-face at localmeetings. The dimension of shared experience appeared to imbue the advice andassistanceprovidedbyaMcKenzieFriendwithasenseofauthorityintheeyesofsomeclients:

IthinkoneofthethingsthatimpressedmeisthathehadgonethroughadivorceaboutthesametimeasIhadandthathehadcomeintothis-becauseIhadoftenthought, “goodness, you know, if I had have known what I know now… andperhapssomeoneshould,youknow,tryandhelppeopletoknowthesesortsofthings and we should just help each other out”. So it seemed to me that[McKenzieFriend]haddoneexactlywhat I thoughtyouknowsomeone shoulddo.(Clientinterview)

Indeed,arunningthemeinourclientinterviewswastheabilityoftheMcKenzieFriendsused to appreciate the position that the LiPwas in, be on the ‘samewavelength’ andempathisewiththeirclient’ssituation:

HeabsolutelyunderstoodmypredicamentwhereI’dcomefrom,whyI’dlefttherelationship.Therewasdomestic violence.…noone really listens to that, theydon’tbelievethatithappenstomen.’(Clientinterview)

The strong link between fathers’ support groups and some McKenzie Friends ishighlighted particularlywell in the following quote. This LiP client had undertaken alarge amount of research and appeared informed about choosing aMcKenzie Friendthatsuitedtheirneeds:

IsortofGoogledandtherewerequitea lotwhoweresortof inwithFathers4JusticeandIimmediatelywent“Woo,noway”.AndIcontactedafewbecausethewebsites were quite sort of bland. I wanted to see where they were comingfrom… What I was seeing online was, it seems that quite a lot of McKenzieFriendshadadifferentagenda. ExcusemyFrenchbutthey’dbeenshatonand

40

they’dwantedtoavengethemselvesorsomething. …thehugedifficultywastofindtheoneIreallygotonwith-Ihadtogothroughalot.Ihadtoseparatethewheat from the chaff because the oneswho advertise themselves aggressively,they are aggressive. And there are ones out there, theymake claimsover andabovewhattheycanactuallyprovide.Like,somebodyvulnerable,it’sveryeasyto be sucked in by this. Theymake false promises and that, formepersonally,that is ahugeproblem….mybiggestbugbear is trying to findonewhodoesn’thave an axe to grind because it’s not always apparent. I’m not saying thatsolicitors and barristers don’t have an axe to grind but the thing is there is acomplaintsproceduretoprotecttheirclient.(Clientinterview)

This interviewee highlights a valid concern over the prevalence of alliances withparticular groups among the fee-charging McKenzie Friends population as a whole.Within any profession, some individuals will have alliances with particular interestgroups that are of relevance to thework that theydo; there arenodoubt family lawsolicitorsandbarristerswhomaintainlinksofvaryingdegreeswithfathers’rightsandsupport groups, or with other parenting groups. Such links need not be inherentlyproblematic(thoughtheyarelesstroublesomeinthecontextofregulatedlawyerswhoareboundtoobservedutiestotheirclientsandtothecourts).Theproblemhereisthatwhereagroupofserviceprovidersappearstobedominatedby individuals who are aligned with the identity or political agenda of a particulargroup,thereisariskthattheoutsideworldwillperceivethattypeofserviceproviderasanextensionofalobbyinggroup,whetherornotthatperceptionisjustified.Thatinturnraisesdoubtsoverhowseriouslythesectorwillbetreated.68This,wesuggest,isanissue for those within the paid McKenzie Friends sector wishing to develop andemphasise its professional credentials. The group is not likely to achieve broadercredibility unless there is further (or at least more visible) diversification and/orprofessionalisationwithinit.

2.5ConclusionsInexploringsomecharacteristics,motivationsandbusinesspracticesof theMcKenzieFriends included in this study, this chapter has revealed a mixed picture. Thoughconcerns about agenda-drivenMcKenzie Friendsmight not be entirelymisplaced,wehave found that they are likely to be exaggerated and we have outlined evidence ofpositive inclinations towards intensive client-care, efforts to keep fees low, andprofessional development. This is not to say that we did not also find evidenceindicatingthatsomeMcKenzieFriendswoulddowelltopursuemorerigorousbusinessmanagement and client-care practices, in the interests of both themselves and theirclients.Asagroup,paidMcKenzieFriendsappeartolackacohesiveapproachtotheirwork–althoughtheseedsofanemergingprofessionalismmightbeburiedininitiativessuchastheSPMFandintheapparentappetiteforrelevanteducationandtraining.

68SeecommentsfromtheLSCPreportexpressingconcernaboutagendadrivenMcKenzieFriends‘whodeliberatelysetouttobedisruptiveorpursueacause,withorwithouttheirclient’sconsent…[or]anothercategoryofindividualwhoismotivatedbytheirownnegativeexperienceandwantstohelp,butlacksobjectivityandmayinadvertentlypushapersonalviewpointontotheclient.’Above,n5,para1.11.

41

The (apparently typical) informality of the McKenzie Friend/client relationshiphighlightsavarietyofconcernsrelatedtosafe,efficientandreliableworkingpracticesinanumberof instances.Thatsaid, theclientswe intervieweddepictedasituation inwhich the relative informality of McKenzie Friend services provided somethingqualitatively different (and, formany, preferable) to the traditionalmodel of lawyer-provided legal services. This perhaps represents an uncomfortable challenge to theorthodoxy surrounding the superiority of servicesprovidedby lawyers.But,whereasonemightjustifiablyquestionthecapacityoflitigantstocomparethequalityofadvicegivenbyqualifiedprofessionalsandunqualifiedMcKenzieFriends,itismoredifficulttodismissalitigant’sassessmentofthequalityofservice. 69Addedtotheinformationweweregiventhatsuggestsfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendscanbeasubstantiallycheapersourceofsupportthanlawyersforlitigants,allthisindicatesthatoneshouldbeslowtodiscounttheirpotentialvalue,particularlyinthepost-LASPOenvironment.

69ThisdistinctionisnotedasimportantanddiscussedatlengthbytheCMA(2016),aboven20,chapter3.

Keyfindings

• In terms ofmotivation, the fee-chargingMcKenzie Friends in our samplefall into one or more of the following categories, with the first categorydemonstrated most commonly: i) The business opportunist; ii) Theredirected specialist; iii) The good Samaritan; iv) The family justicecrusader; v) The rogue. We saw limited evidence of McKenzie Friendsbelonging to the fifth category, though further evidence fromoutside thestudysupportsitsexistence.

• TheLiPswespoketochosefee-chargingMcKenzieFriendstosupportthemfor reasons of affordability, flexibility, shared experience and having acommitted‘ally’assistingthemintheircase.MostgavepositiveaccountsoftheirexperienceofusingaMcKenzieFriend.

• Although we saw limited evidence that McKenzie Friends are frequentlyagenda-driven, the prevalence of affiliations with certain organisationswithin the McKenzie Friend community might raise questions about theextenttowhichthissourceofsupportisavailableonagender-neutralandclient-centredbasis.

• McKenzie Friend business practices appear to vary in quality and rigour.Thetake-upofprofessionalindemnityinsuranceandregistrationwiththeInformation Commissioner’s Office, whilst requirements for members oftheSPMF,werenotadoptedwidelybyothers.ProtectionforLiPclientsofMcKenzieFriendsintheserespectsisthereforepatchy.

• There was a mixed approach and attitude to complaints handling andpotentialriskissues–forboththeMcKenzieFriendsthemselvesandtheirLiP clients. There is a lack of protection for LiP clients who have acomplaintandthereareverylimitedavenuesofredressavailabletothem.

42

3.Thehiddendepths:workdoneoutsideofcourtPrevious commentary has noted that the work of fee-charging McKenzie Friendsextends far beyond their originally-conceived role as supporters providing moralsupport and quiet advice in the courtroom.70 To date, however, the majority ofdiscussionandcommentaryaboutMcKenzieFriendshasfocusedontheirin-courtrole.The LSCP noted that the ‘extended role’ encompasses advice and practical supportoutsideofthecourtenvironmentbutgavelittlebywayofdetailonthisextendedrole.71TheHickinbottomreportdefined theextended roleofMcKenzieFriendsaccording tothe exercise of rights of audience and the conduct of a litigant’s claim.72 The recentproposal, presented in the Lord Chief Justice’s consultation on McKenzie Friends, toprohibit recovery of fees forwork connectedwith a case inwhichMcKenzie Friendsappearincourtdidnotexplicitlyaddressthesignificanceofthisfactor.Moreover,theirfurther suggestion that McKenzie Friends should be renamed ‘court supporters’indicatesanarrow,orthodoxcharacterisationofthenatureoftherole.73In short, the role of McKenzie Friends as out-of-court legal service providers hasreceivedverylittleattention,buthasthepotentialtoimpactonlitigantwelfareandtheadministration of justice in ways as important as in-court assistance. This chapterbegins to fill the gap by examining the work that fee-charging McKenzie Friendsundertake outside of the court and will suggest that their court-based work is bestcharacterisedasthetipofanicebergcomparedwiththeworkmanyreportthattheydotosupportandassisttheirclientsoutsideofcourt.Inthesecondpartofthechapterweconsider(totheextentthatweareable)whatourdatarevealsaboutthecompetenceand appropriateness of theworkMcKenzie Friends do in their extended out-of-courtrole.

3.1.Thescopeof‘theextendedrole’AndwhatIfindthatclientswantfromme,whichisthebitIlikeaboutitthemostactually, is theywantdirection and theywant strategy and theywant to knowwherewe’reactuallygoingwiththisandthat’skindofbeenthebitofthejobthatIhavealwaystendedtopreferandfavour.(McKenzieFriendinterview)So,we’llgetpeoplewhosay,“Look,thisisa20pageapplicationform,forthelifeofme, I haven’t got a clue how to fill it in”. So Imight assist themwith that. Imight–andthentheywouldgettheirnoticeofproceedings,andyouwouldassistthemtoputtogetherapositionstatement.Youwouldgivethemadviceastowhatthe format was on the first hearing dispute resolution appointment, what theoptionswere,what theymightbe,whatdirections theymightbe seeking fromthe court. And through to the ongoing stages, in terms of their statements,

70LSCP,above,n5,pp13-14.71Ibid,pp13-14.72TheJudicialWorkingGrouponLitigantsinPerson:Report(2013),above,n2,para6.12.73Above,n18,pp12-14.

43

discussionswithCafcass,adviceastoCafcassrole,thatsortofthing.Sothewholeambitreally,frombeginningtoend.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

These quotes emphasise a key finding of this research study: that, amongst thoseMcKenzieFriendsweinterviewed,thebulkoftheworkisdoneoutsideofcourt.Theirout-of-court work is far-reaching and practically oriented, often encompassing taskssuchas:

- Assistancewithpaperworkandcorrespondence;- Legaladviceandinformation;- Managingexpectationsandadvisingonstrategy;- Facilitatingsettlement.

As indicated in one of the quotes above, someMcKenzie Friends appearmuchmorecomfortable in this unseen support and advisory capacity than they are in the courtenvironment. Indeed, a minority of McKenzie Friends said they actively deter theirclientsfromusingthecourtprocessatall,andassuchrarelydoanyworkinthecourtenvironment.Whendiscussingtheirmostrecentcase,oneMcKenzieFriendhighlightedthatthecourtmaynotevenbeawarethataLiPhasafee-chargingMcKenzieFriendinthebackgroundassistingthemwiththeircase:

I gave her the advice, filled out the forms, helped herwith the statement, shewenttocourtonherownbecauseItoldherwhattodo.Shehasgotaninjunction,gotahearingon[day]-againIhavetoldherwhattodosoI’mnottravellingto[court]Iamjustgivingadviceandassistance.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Thisexamplealsospeakstothedifficultiesassociatedwithidentifyingandloggingfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendinvolvementinacase,whichwillbediscussedfurtherinthenextchapter.

3.1.1PaperworkInterviewdatafromMcKenzieFriendsandclientssuggestedthatamajorfeatureoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriendworkisassistingwithdocumentsandpaperworkoutsideofthe court hearings. This can begin right at the outset of the process with courtapplication forms, something thatmostMcKenzie Friends expressly or impliedly saidtheyassistedwith.Wealsoheardmanyaccountsofassistancewiththepreparationofdocumentsrequiredfor court hearings, such asposition statements, disclosure forms, skeleton argumentsandquestions foruse in cross-examination, aswell asbundles.Theability tomanageandpresentthenecessarypaperworkincourtwasidentifiedasabigchallengeforLiPsin Trinder et al’s study.74 We were not able to examine examples of documentspreparedbyMcKenzieFriendsinthisstudy,butwedidhearenoughabouttherulesofthumbapplied topaperworkpreparation tomakeus confident in inferring that theirworkinthisareacanbeuseful.Forexample,thisMcKenzieFriendwastypicalinsayingthey encouraged their clients tomake the position statement as brief as possible: “I

74Above,n4,ch3

44

haveatwopagerule, it’ssupposedtobeskimreadable,youknow,it’sjusttogivethecourtaflavourorahighlightofwhoiswho,whatiswhatandwhatdotheywant.”SeveralMcKenzieFriendsemphasisedthebenefitsofpositionstatementsasdocumentsthatcanhelpfocusthemindsoftheirclientsontheissuesathandandalsogivethemconfidencewhen they appear in court, “because as a litigant in person theymay feeltongue-tied before a court and they can hand that [the position statement] over”.Additionally, someMcKenzie Friends spoke of having a role in temperingwhatwentintocourtdocumentationbyencouragingrestraintinrelationtoissuesLiPsheldstrongemotionson,aswellasensuringthatkeyissueswerefocusedon.AllthisappearslikelytoresultinpaperworkthatismoremanageableincontentandvolumethanwhatmanyLiPswouldproducethemselves.LiP clients in both freestanding and linked observation interviews gave positivefeedback on the assistance provided by their McKenzie Friends with case-relatedpaperwork.Thefollowingquotenotonlyprovidesanexampleofthetypeofpaperworkassistanceprovidedtoclientsbutalsohighlightsthevalueclientsinterviewedplacedonthiswork:

One of the things I was most impressed with the McKenzie, is his ability,especiallywritinga statement. What Idid, Ihad toobviouslydraftouthistoryaboutwhathappenedinrelationtomyseparation,and[McKenzieFriend]hadtorevise my statement in a format that courts require. The court would say,shouldn’tbemorethan,Ithink,oneortwopagesandheknewallthis.Istillhavecopiesofthestatementsandthey’resecondtonone.(Clientinterview)

Similarly,we heard accounts ofMcKenzie Friends helping clients to put their bundletogetherandlabelitmeaningfully,ratherthanlettingthemtakein“theirTescocarrierbag for lifewithall thedocumentation in”, aswell asensuring itdoesnotexceed themaximum number of pages permitted.75 Even a McKenzie friend who did not likeputtingtogetherbundlesdescribedanapproachthatislikelytobepracticallyusefultomostLiPs:

WellIsaytomyclients[Itry]toavoiddoingbundlesifIcan.I’llsendpeoplelinkstohowtopreparetheirbundle.Ifthey’vegotanyquestionsthenI’llanswerthem.Ifthey’reobviouslynotcapableofdoingabundleanddon’thavetheequipmentthenI’lldothatbutit’snotsomethingthatIwouldnormallywanttogetinvolvedwith.It’squitetimeconsuming.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Beyond the court paperwork, it seems that the McKenzie Friends we interviewedcommonly assist LiPs in drafting correspondence with efforts to encourage focus onrelevantissuesandtodiscouragethespillingofemotionsontothepagealsobeingmadeinthisarea:

And things about, you know, if I had an email andwewere corresponding byemail only at thispointwithmyex-partner, youknow through the toneof the

75FamilyProcedureRules2010PracticeDirection27AFamilyProceedings:CourtBundles(UniversalPracticetobeappliedintheHighCourtandFamilyCourt).

45

responseIshouldadopt-move-toapointwhereit’sasortofdispassionatetoneand this is a, you know, effectively it’s a business problem… Yeah and otherthings like, you know, don’t be sort of passive-aggressive in your emails youknowavoiduseofthesewords,useofthosewords.(Clientinterview)

3.1.2ManagingexpectationsManaging a client’s expectations is a key feature of a lawyer’s role, especially on theroutetosettlement.76ManyoftheMcKenzieFriendsinoursampleindicatedthattheytriedtomoderatetheirclients’requestsandmanagetheirexpectations,particularlyintherun-uptocourthearings.

Rightfromtheoutset, Iwill tryandreadjustpeople’sexpectationstoarealisticoutcome.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

SomefeltthatitwaspartoftheirroletoimpartunpalatableadvicetoLiPs,eveniftheydidnotwanttohearit:

Iwillsaytothem,lookyou’refreetoignoreortakemyadvice,youcantakemyadviceandshoveitupyourbackside.Doesn’tmatter,itdoesn’tmatter,butthisiswhatIamadvisingyoutodo.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

OneMcKenzieFriendsuggestedthattheyemphasisetoclientsthattheyshouldalwaysmake child arrangements applications on the basis of the best interests of the child,whilstanotherindicatedthattheywouldtrytopersuadetheclienttolookatthedisputefrom the point of view of the children, rather than becoming locked into a battlementalitywithanex-partner:

Ifeelfairlycomfortableaboutgoing,“Well,thereisanotherwaytolookatitandperhaps if you were to change your perspective or change your position onthingsthatyoumightgetbetteroutcomesforyourchildren”.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

InchaptertwowehighlightedthereasonswhytheLiPswespoketochosefee-chargingMcKenzie Friends over solicitors. Whilst the overriding driver was cost andaffordability, the informality and approachability of a McKenzie Friend and theirperceivedcommitmenttotheclient’scasewerealsocitedassignificant.TrustthattheirMcKenzieFriendhad theirbest interestsatheartwas tacitlydemonstratedbyclientswhoclearlyactedupontheunpalatableadvicetheyreceived:

[McKenzieFriend]saidlook,you’renotgoingtowinthis.WhatI’dsuggestyoudoisjustrollwithitandthen,youknow,youreldestisalmost17,thesecondoneis almost going to be 16, and the youngest - youwill just have to take it as itgoes… So that was some, I guess, very unpalatable advice but I followed it.SometimesIwonderwhetheritwasagoodthingbutIthinkitwasgoodadviceatthetime.(Clientinterview)

76Forexample,seeEHitchings,JMilesandHWoodward,Assemblingthejigsawpuzzle:financialsettlementondivorce(UniversityofBristol,2013)onsettlementissuesinfinancialremedycases.

46

We went through stuff; we worked out a narrative for the day. He set myexpectationsprettylow.Hesaid,“Thechancesare,”hesaid,“thisiswhatyou’regonna get out of your hearing,” which is every other weekend and half theholidays.WhichisprettymuchdeadonwhatIgot.(Clientinterview)

3.1.3SupportingsettlementWhere appropriate, settlement is encouraged within the family justice system.77Consistent with the efforts to reduce conflict described above, all of our McKenzieFriendintervieweessuggestedatsomepointthatsettlementactivitieswereanelementof their work, and a sizeable majority described themselves as being highly pro-settlement:

Obviouslywealwaysworkontheprinciplethatwewanttotryandnegotiate,weprefertheconsentorwepreferpeopletoworktogether…Isaidifwegoforthegladiatorialstyleyouknowyou’refarmorelikelytoendupinanothercaseinthefutureandIsaidthat’snotgood.(McKenzieFriendinterview)Yeah, Imeanpersonally I don’t see thepoint in just battling thingsout for thesakeofitincourt.Idon’tseethepointinthatso,mynaturaldispositionisnottobeincourt.WhichmaysoundabitstrangefromaMcKenzieFriend,butIalwaystry and encourage them to be conciliatorywhether it’s in finances or childrenmatters.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Insomecases, legaladvicewasreported tobegivenaspartof theprocessofguidingLiPstowardssettlement:

I do try and help them do it themselves, I will send the welfare checklist toparentsthataregoingthroughtheChildrenActcasesand,“thisiswhatthecourtare going to decide it on, this is how itworks”. Samewithmatrimonial – sendthem the Section 25 factors, “this is where you are, this is what’s taken intoaccount:you’reoncloudcuckooland–stopthisnow!Thedealisnotbad,Iwouldsuggestmaybe you’d look at taking it anddon’t put yourself through this finalhearing”.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Reinforcing the McKenzie Friend accounts, two clients recounted experiences of aMcKenzie Friend guiding them to an agreement on the basis of which they avoidedgoingtocourtaltogether.78Inpursuitofthesettlementagenda,someMcKenzieFriendsalsosaidtheyparticipateindraftingconsentorders,likethisonewhoreportedworkingfromtemplates:

WelltherearelotsofdifferenttemplatesthatIhaveseenfromclientswhohavecometome.Andtextbooks.AndIwillaskaclienttowritedownwhattheywant,asintheirconsentorderor,writeoutwhatthetermsare,andI’lljusttypeitoutfortheminlegal language.AndthenononeoccasionwhenIwasinahearingajudge said tome, formy client, “Well can’t you go out there and draft out the

77Forexample,MinistryofJustice,Transformingourjusticesystem:summaryofreformsandconsultation(Cm9321,2016),para1.5.78Interestingly,theseagreementsweresaidtohavestoodthetestoftime–fouryearsinonecase.

47

consentorder?”AndIsaid“NoIcan’t,Ihaven’tgotthetemplatewithme.”Sohesaid “Well” you know “come back when you’ve done it”. (McKenzie Friendinterview)

For themostpart,however, thosewhodidmentionconsentorderswere reluctant togetinvolvedindraftingthem.OneMcKenzieFriendsaidthattheytendtoassistclientswhere theotherpartyhasasolicitorso thesolicitorwillendupdraftinganyconsentorder, whilst another McKenzie Friend said they used a former colleague (a non-practisingsolicitor)todraftanyorders. YetanotherMcKenzieFriendsaidtheyeitherdirectclientstogotoan‘accreditedmediator’whocandrafttheorder,orsuggestthattheypaytogettheorderdraftedbyasolicitor.AlargenumberofourMcKenzieFriendsamplealsoreportedthattheyactivelypromotemediation when clients first come to them. The promotion of mediation and thesettlement orientation are not entirely without problems,79 but they are deeplyembeddedaspectsofthecurrentorthodoxyinrelationtofamilyproceedingsandmanyMcKenzie Friends seem to be well in-step with that reality. Of course, this was notapplicabletoallinterviewees,andacoupleofMcKenzieFriendsdidnotmentiontakinganyproactivestepstowardssettlementormediation.

3.1.4LegaladviceTheprovisionoflegaladviceisnotareservedlegalactivityundertheLegalServicesAct2007. In our interviews with McKenzie Friends and clients the advice that paidMcKenzie Friends gave to their clients reportedly varied from the provision ofindividualisedlegaladvicetotheprovisionoflegalinformationonly,toarefusaltosayanything about the law.80 Accessing tailored legal advice is one of the greatest needsthatLiPshave,butitisoftenanunmetneedinthepostLASPOenvironment.81Thereisreasonable debate to be had about whether McKenzie Friends can appropriatelyprovideservicestomeetit.Ontheonehand,theneedisgreatandMcKenzieFriendsaretechnically free to give advice. On the other hand, giving legal advice is arguably ahighly-specialised, high-risk activity.82 This may be particularly the case in childrencaseswheremistakesmight impactonpatternsofparenting,contactandresidenceinwayswhicharenoteasilycorrectedafter theevent.Therisks toclientsofpresentingand defending unreasonable positions are high and the administration of justice ispotentially threatened by the pursuit of unmeritorious cases.MostMcKenzie Friendswespoketo,asshowninchapter2,donothaveformallegaltraining.

79See,forexample,LSmithandLTrinder,‘Mindthegap:parenteducationprogrammesandthefamilyjusticesystem’[2012]24(4)ChildandFamilyLawQuarterly428-451.80Forthepurposeofthefollowingdiscussion,wedefine‘individualisedadvice’asadviceaboutthelawthatistailoredtothespecificissuesinaperson’scase,and‘legalinformation’asgeneralneutralinformation,whichmayincludeanabstractoverviewofthecurrentlawandprocedureandadescriptionofoptionsopentotheclient.Forfurtherdiscussionofthevariousapproachestoinformationprovisioninamediationcontext,seeHitchingsandMiles,‘Mediation,financialremedies,informationprovisionandlegaladvice:thepost-LASPOconundrum’(2016)38(2)JournalofSocialWelfareandFamilyLaw,175.81SeeTrinderetal,aboven4.ProbonoandUniversitylawclinicschemesarelimitedincapacityandunevenlydistributed,andthePersonalSupportUnitdoesnotprovidelegaladvice.82Therationalityoftheexclusionoflegaladvicefromallformsofregulation(asdistinctfromreservation)istoucheduponbySMaysonandOMarley,Theregulationoflegalservices:whatisthecaseforreservation?(LegalServicesInstitute,July2011)andbytheCMA,above,n20.

48

AnumberoftheMcKenzieFriendsweinterviewedwereveryopenaboutthefactthattheyprovideindividualisedlegaladvicetotheirLiPclients:

I amgiving legal advice… I’ll tailor [the legal advice] to the case, always tailoreverythingtothecase.’(McKenzieFriendinterview)CitizensAdviceBureau…doalotofgoodbuttheycannotgivethelevelofhelpandservicethatIcanprovide.Alltheycandoisprovidealittlebitofadviceatthestart, a little bit of advice throughout; they can’t help these people with thepaperwork,theycan’tgivedefinitivelegaladvice…I’mahalfwayhousebetweenfulllegalrepresentationwithallthebellson,asyouwouldgetwithalawyer,orthe Citizens Advice Bureau, which is extremely limited. (McKenzie Friendinterview)

Oneintervieweesuggestedthata largeproportionoftheirnon-courtworkwasgivinglegal advice to clientswhile theywere undertakingmediation and another that theywouldgivelegaladvicetosupportclientsinnegotiatingasettlement,atorawayfromcourts:

TheywillbesayingsomethingandIwillsaytomyclient…youcan,oryourrightisthis,oryourrightisthat.OrIwillsaysometimes,actuallythat’snotright…Itislegaladvice,yes.It’snotjustafeelingIhave,it’sbasedonwhatIunderstandthelawis.(McKenzieFriendinterview-onadvisingduringnegotiations)WhatIdodo,isprepareamediationplanbecauseifyou’repaying£250anhourformediationyouneedto,you’renotgoingthereforabunfightandyouneedtohaveaveryconcise,againreasonable,proportionateplanofwhatyou’relookingforandthentotickthemoff.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Acoupleofotherintervieweessaidthattheydidgiveadvicebutappearedsufficientlytuned into the risks involved in them doing that to require their clients to accept adisclaimerofsorts.SothisMcKenzieFriendexpectedclientstobeartheresponsibilityforfollowinganyparticularpath:

We are giving advice, any advicewe give you, you livewith the consequences.Youknow,wecanadviseyoubutyou’refreetolistenordisregardanyadvicewegiveyouatanypoint.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Thisonewentastepfurther,requiringclientstosignadisclaimeraspartofthetermsofbusiness:

IhaveacaveatinmytermsandconditionsthatsaysifIhavetoopenupthisbookand look at case law and try andpresent case law then I amnot liable formyinterpretationofthatandatthatpointIwouldadviseaclientthattheyneedtogoandspeaktoabarristerthroughtheirbrilliantdirectaccessscheme,becauseitisbrilliant,Iloveit…Iwillassistpeopleasaninformedfriend,aninformedfriendwhich means that I have a certain amount of protection if someone wants tocomebackandsayyougavemethewrong legaladvice,noIdon’tbecauseyou

49

signedmytermsandconditionswhichexplicitlysays that Iamnotqualified togivelegaladvice.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Motivated by the same caution exhibited by this McKenzie Friend, some of ourMcKenzieFriendsamplefeltthatprovidinglegaladvicegoesbeyondtheremitoftheirroleandsimplyreportedthattheydonotdoit:

Idoseeit[beingaMcKenzieFriend]asarolethatIcandowithouttakinglegalqualificationsbecauseI’mnotgivinglegaladviceanyway,Iamguidingpeopleonhowbesttonavigatethroughasystemthatwouldbealientothemwithoutsomeguidance.’(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Ofthese,anumbersaidthat, if legaladvicewasrequired,theyfelt itshouldbesoughtfromlawyers:

Themainthingisjusttomakesurethey’reawareyou’renotasolicitor,youcan’tgive legal advice… and if there is anything where they think they need legaladvice that, you know, that they really do need to consider getting that.(McKenzieFriendinterview)IthinkmyroleistoguidepeopleandiftheyneedlegaladvicethenItellthemtogoandget itand Iwon’tworkwith themuntil theyhave. I certainlydon’tgivelegaladvicebecausethat’snotmyrole.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

ThegreyareaTheboundarybetweenlegaladviceandinformation,ornon-legaladvice,isnotaclearone.ThefollowingquoteshighlightthingsthatMcKenzieFriendswhodidnotclaimtogivelegaladvicedidreportdoing.Theemphasisisours:

Wedon’tdealwiththemassolicitorsorbarristers,wedealwiththemaspeoplewho need guidance but just provide themwith information, just provide themwith theoptions…The court is interested inmoving forward rather than lookingback. If there’s domestic violence then obviously that’s very important and thatneeds to be highlighted to the courts and they can then put that intoconsideration.(McKenzieFriendinterview)…theywantdirectionandtheywantstrategyandtheywanttoknowwherewe’reactuallygoingwiththis…sowhenImeetsomebody,Iwouldbewantingtokindofgive themakindofoverviewofwhere itmayendup.Where it shouldendup.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

In addition, one McKenzie Friend vehemently rejected the idea that they gave legaladvice but had a specific procedure in place for calculating what they would adviseclientstoseekinfinancialremedycases,demonstratingthattheyeffectivelydoprovidelegal adviceby tailoringadvice to their clients’ cases. Wedid identify a tendency forsomeMcKenzieFriendstorecastadvicerelatingtofamilylawasnon-legal:

Idon’tgive legaladvice, Igive family lawadvice... If I cometo family lawand Ihavegotanumberofbooksoffamilylaw,ifIhavetoopenupabookandlookat

50

[caselaw],thenIamgoingintotherealmsoflookingatlegaladvice.However,Iamsitting thereandgoing, “let’s takeyourcase,wheredowe feel,whatdowethink are thephysical, emotional, educational needsof your child?”. (McKenzieFriendinterview)

This interviewee appeared to be suggesting that there is a difference betweenappreciating what the ‘law’ is and what is desirable and practical under thecircumstances. Theremight be some truth in this position, but it appeared in part tostemfromabeliefthatitwouldnotoftenbenecessarytolookfurtherthanthestatutoryframeworksforfinanceandprivatelawchildrencasesthatexisttoguidecourtsintheexerciseoftheirdiscretionwhenrespondingtothespecificcircumstancesofeachcase.The notion that courts do not exercise that discretion within the parameters ofextensivelydevelopedlegalauthorities,however,ismisguided.On thebasis ofwhathasbeendiscussed in this chapter so far,we suggest that someMcKenzie Friends fail to appreciate that they are walking a rather fine dividing linebetweenproviding legal information,ornon-legaladvice,and legaladvice.Taskssuchas presenting a summary of relevant case law, outlining the options available to aprospective litigant, helping theLiP to focuson relevant rather than irrelevant issuesand advising on possible pathways and/or likely outcomes in a particular case areappropriately described as legal advice. These tasks entail the selection of salientinformationforpresentationandassuchdemandinterpretationandapplicationofrawinformation about law and legal process – skills traditionally developed throughtraditionallegaleducation.83

3.1.5AvoidingundertakingtheconductoflitigationThe right to conduct litigation is a reserved legal activity and is definedby the LegalServicesAct2007as:

a) theissuingofproceedingsbeforeanycourtinEnglandandWales,b) thecommencement,prosecutionanddefenceofsuchproceedings,andc) theperformanceofanyancillaryfunctionsinrelationtosuchproceedings(such

asenteringappearancestoactions).84AnumberoftheMcKenzieFriendsinoursampleshowedsomeawarenessoftheneedtoavoidactivities thatmight fallwithin thedefinitionof theconductof litigationandsaid that theyareveryclearwith theirclientsabout the typeofactivity that theycanandcannotconduct.

IamnotapractisingsolicitorandIamnotallowedtoconductreservedactivity.…Withtheclientstheyaretoldatthevery,ontheveryfirstphonecallaboutthedifferences. That I am technically well in reality, helping them to representthemselves.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

83AsimilarargumentissetoutatlengthinrelationtotheroleofmediatorsinMMacleanandJEekelaar,LawyersandMediators:TheBraveNewWorldofServicesforSeparatingFamilies(Oxford,HartPublishing,2016).84LSA2007,Schedule2,para4(1).

51

I’vehadtheoddclientwhereIhavehadtokeepgoingbackandtheywillsaycanyoudothisandI’mlike,“no,I’mafraidIcan’t,Ican’tconductlitigationforyou.IcantellyouwhatyouneedtodoandIcanhelpyouandIcandraftforyoubutIcan’t callonyourbehalf, I can’t telephone thecourts, I can’t speak to theothersolicitorsunlessI’mgivenpermission.”(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Among those who were conscious of the issue, there was some inconsistency andconfusion, however, with the following McKenzie Friend demonstrating anunderstanding with regards to aspects of the reserved activities, but mistakenlyassumingtheyencompassedlegaladvice:

[I]t isafact inlawthattheLegalServicesActpreventsaMcKenzieFriendfromgivinglegaladvice,representingaclientandconductinglitigation,includingtherightofaudience(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Suchconfusionisentirelyunderstandable.Thestatutorydefinitionisvague-indeed,ithasbeendescribedas‘singularlyunhelpful’.85Inrecognitionofthis,usefulguidanceisavailable to barristers, summarizing the relatively narrow range of activities that areaccepted as falling within the definition of conducting litigation and outlining greyareas.86Infact,thescopeofconductinglitigationisdeliberatelynarrow,extendingonlytothe‘formalsteps’associatedwithlitigation.87Nonetheless,theextantambiguityoverwhatqualifiesasaformalstepisparticularlyproblematicforlayassistantswhoneedtoknowwith certaintywhat parameters should be placed on theirwork, so it isworthcommentingonthemainpointsofconfusionweidentified.CorrespondenceOneMcKenzieFriendwitha legalbackgroundexplainedthattheywouldnotwriteontheirheadedpapertoanyoneonbehalfof theirclientsbecausethatwouldamounttoconductinglitigation.SomeMcKenzieFriendssaidtheywouldwriteordraftlettersontheirclient’sbehalf,butthengettheLiPtosignandposttheletterthemselves.OnlyoneMcKenzieFriendopenlyadmittedtocorrespondingonbehalfofclients:

…. you’re not really, we’re not supposed to, but theMcKenzie Friend rules doactually state that you can assist peripherally in any way that the litigant inpersonneedsyoutoassist.88So,looselydefined,wedowhatwedo.Wehaven’thadanymajor,majorissueswithitforthelastfiveyears.We’vehadafewpeople,a few judgesquestionsomeof thepaperworkthat’sbeensentbut theyhaven’tsaid,theyhaven’tsaidwe’rebreakingthelaw.…Thereisalotofcorrespondencethatgoesoutandwegetpaperworkbackfromcourttousdirectly.Theyacceptthat we’re assisting, they know we’re McKenzie Friends. [Observation linkedMcKenzieFriendinterview]

85O’ConnorvBarStandardsBoard[2012]AllER(D)108(Aug).86SeetheBarStandardsBoardHandbookandTheBarCouncil,Roleofbarristersinnon-solicitorcases,December2015.87SeeAgassivRobinson(InspectorofTaxes)[2006]1WLR2126andO’Connor,above,n85.88Itwasnotclearwhatrulesthisintervieweewasreferringtoandwedonotknowofanythatcontainsuchanindication.

52

In the course of our court observations, comments from the judges in two separatecases indicatedthataMcKenzieFriendhadexceededtheorthodoxrolebecausetherewassomecorrespondenceonfileusingtheMcKenzieFriend’sheadedpaper.Infactcorrespondence(asdistinctfromtheserviceofdocuments)doesnotfallwithinthe scope of the conduct of litigation.89 Thosewhodraft correspondence butwill notsend it are perhaps tuned into an apparently blurry distinction between deliveringdocuments to a court and issuing/filing them.90 But that distinction relates to formalcourtdocuments,notgeneralcorrespondence.PreparingcourtdocumentsInthecaseofReH(children),91 theCourtofAppealappearedtacitlytoendorseatrialjudge’sconclusionthataMcKenzieFriend’scontributionof20%tothepreparationofdocuments crossed into the territory of conducting litigation and was unacceptable.GivenwhatwehavereportedaboutthenatureoftheextendedroleofMcKenzieFriendsoutside of court, according to this judgment almost every McKenzie Friend weinterviewed would fall into the conducting litigation bracket. The decision does notappear to have hadmuch influence, partly because itwas an appeal inwhich itwasstressedthatthecourtwasreluctanttointerferewithafirstinstancecasemanagementdecision. It also appears to contradict higher authorities on the conduct of litigationbeingdefinedverynarrowly.92Thedecision isalsocountertothecurrentBarCouncilGuidance, which states that the “prohibition does not apply to documentswhich areancillarytoroleofanofanadvocate:e.g.skeletonarguments,casesummaries,positionstatements,chronologiesandlistsofissues.”93Oneofourintervieweesspecificallymentionedthedecision,however,andtheexistenceof apparently conflicting authorities on thepermissibility of an aspect of out-of-courtworkapparentlyundertakenbymanyfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsistroublesome.

3.2Out-of-courttasksandMcKenzieFriendcompetenceOfcourse, thesignificanceof theabovediscussion inpartdependsonwhetherornotMcKenzieFriendsareabletoperformtaskstoaminimumlevelofcompetence.Duringthe court observation stage of the research we noted two instances of apparentlyquestionable strategic advice byMcKenzie Friends. In one, theMcKenzie Friend hadencouragedtheLiPtoapplyforanenforcementordernotwithstandingstrongevidencethat the former partnerwas impecunious. Much of the hearingwas taken up by thejudge explaining to the respondent LiP how and why they should lodge a cross-applicationtovarytheoriginalorder.Inanothercase,itappearedfromtheobservationthat the McKenzie Friend had helped to facilitate the making of an inappropriateapplicationinerror.

89SeeAgassi(above,n87)confirmingthat‘deliveringdocumentstoopposingpartiesandthecourt’willnotnormallyamounttoconductinglitigation.FurtherdiscussioncanbefoundinTheBarCouncil,Roleofbarristersinnon-solicitorcases,December2015,p11.90HeronBrosLtdvCentralBedfordshireCouncil(No2)[2015]EWHC1009.91[2012]EWCACiv1797.92Forexample,Agassi(above,n87).93Above,n90,p10.

53

We also heard some examples of McKenzie Friends giving advice in ways that werelikely to be straining the boundaries of their abilities. In the following example, aMcKenzieFrienddescribesmakinggeneralizationsinanareaoflawthatisnotoriouslydifficulttopredict,evenfortheexperts–namely,spousalperiodicalpayments:94

I had a woman recently was trying to do mediation with the husband, thehusbandwas saying thatbecause she is getting thehouse there isnoway in amillionyearshe’sgoingtopayherspousalmaintenance.…IsaidIprettymuchguaranteeyouthere isnowaythatmanisgoingtowalkoutofcourtwithoutaspousalmaintenanceorder…youwillgetspousalmaintenancebutitmightbeapound, I don’t know yet because I don’t know how you’re going to split themoney up. You know, it might be a hundred pounds, it might be a thousandpoundsamonth.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Meanwhile,anotherMcKenzieFriendgaveanexampleofarecentcasewheretheymetthepartiesatcourtandthenactedasa‘mediator’outsideofcourttotrytoencouragesettlement:

I havealsomediatedbetween twoparties,havingmet them in court. I’mnot amediator,I’mnottrainedbutIhavesaidtothem,“look,youknow,doyouthinkthetwoofyoucansitdownwithmeandwecansortthisout,andI’llchargeyou£60eachratherthanfive,sixhundredquidbetweenthetwoofyou?”Andtheysaid yes, and I’ve come up with a draft consent order that will be sent to asolicitortocheckandthenthey’vebeensignedoff.YouknowandI’mnot,I’mnottrained as amediator but I can sit downwith two reasonable people and saycomeon,we’vegotthis.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Despitea lackofmediationtraining, thisMcKenzieFriendwasveryconfident in theirinnateabilitytoactasamediator.Whilethepragmaticanddeterminedapproachmightseemcommendable,thefactthatafeewaschargedforanactivitythatfellbeyondtheMcKenzieFriend’sexistingexperienceistroubling,particularlyiftheyhadrepresentedone of the parties previously (which was not clear from the story as told by theMcKenzieFriend).

OtherMcKenzieFriendsdemonstratedmoreself-awarenessinrelationtotheirabilities,orlackthereof.Someemphasisedthattheywouldreferclientstootherproviderswherenecessary.Forexample, if theydidnot feelableprovideaparticularservice,whetherthiswas inrelation to family law legaladviceand thequery involveda legalproblemgoingbeyondtheirknowledgebase,or if theenquiryrelatedtoadifferentareaofthelaw.

WhatIdoisIwillonlytakeonthingsordealwiththingswhichareinmyremitofexpertise.…Igetquitealotofenquiriesforwillsandthings,whichisalittlebitweird but maybe, I think, some people think family law is like the traditionalsense of the family’s lawyer, you know. So I’ve got a, you know, a couple ofsolicitors I always send those enquiries to. The same with, you know, often

94SeeMatrimonialProperty,NeedsandAgreements(2014)LawComNo343wheretheLawCommissionreportedontheregionaldifferenceinthedurationofspousalperiodicalpayments(para2.45-2.53).Thisisaclearexampleofanareaofprivatefamilylawinwhichitisdifficulttogiveabsoluteadvice.

54

sometimes I might get a phone call from somebody who it’s effectively like apropertydispute,youknow,theyjointlyownahousebutthereisnoissueover,they’renot co-habitingor anything andof course that’snotmybag so Iwouldsendthemtosomebodyelsewhodealswiththat.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Consistentwiththis,itisworthrecallingthatmostoftheMcKenzieFriendswespoketosaid they specialised in family law cases, and themain, or even exclusive, focus for amajority was child arrangements. In certain respects this is unsurprising; the mainsourceofclientrecruitment formany is throughparentingnetworksand thereare inanycasea largernumberofchildarrangementscasescomparedwithfinancecases inthe courts.95 However, some McKenzie Friends suggested that their focus on childarrangementswastheresultofadeliberatedecisionresultingfromrecognitionthatthesubstantivelawrelatedtofinancialremediesismoretechnicalandtheylackedrelevanttraining and expertise.With the odd exception, financeworkwas undertaken by themoreexperiencedinterviewees,orthosewhohadsomepreviousrelevanttraining.AssuchwehavesomeevidencethatsomeMcKenzieFriendsdoself-consciouslylimittherangeofworktheydoaccordingtowhattheyjudgetheircapabilitiestobe.

3.2.1The‘vignette’exerciseThisstudywasnotdesignedtoprovideanobjectivemeasureofthequalityofMcKenzieFriends’ work. We did not observe McKenzie Friends working outside of the courtenvironmentorreviewpaperworkthatMcKenzieFriendshadassistedwith;inrelationto out-of-court work we were reliant on the views and perceptions of interviewedMcKenzieFriendsandclients(thelatterbeing,astheCMAacknowledges, ill-equippedtojudgethequalityofservicesreceivedinanareaasspecialisedaslegaladvice).96Assuch,wearelimitedintheextenttowhichwecancommentonhowwellequippedfee-charging McKenzie Friends are to carry out the work they undertake in terms ofknowledge,skillsandexperience.However,wedidasktheMcKenzieFriendsweconductedfreestandinginterviewswithto respond to a hypothetical vignette,97 which was designed to replicate a relativelycommon child arrangements scenario. The vignette primarily served as a tool forexploring how the McKenzie Friends would approach a request for help, and whatissuestheywouldconsidertobeimportantwhenassistingaLiPinsuchacase.Itwasnot deployed as a test, or as a means of benchmarking McKenzie Friends againstlawyers, and as such it did not require a recall of case law, or specific legislativeprovisions,orpredictionsofa likelyoutcome. Itdid includescope to relay familiaritywiththebasicprocedurefordealingwithachildarrangementscase.Theresponsestothe vignette enable us to draw some inferences about the extent to which those weinterviewedweretunedinto issuesthatare likelytobeof importancetothecasesoftheLiPstheyassist.

95SeeMinistryofJustice,Familycourtstatisticsquarterly.Familycourttables:JulytoSeptember2016.London:MinistryofJustice(2016).Retrievedfromhttps://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-201696TheCMAdescribethebarriersposedtoassessmentsofqualityoflegalservicesasaresultof‘informationassymetry’betweenproviderandconsumer.SeeCMA(2016),aboven20,chapter3.97Seeappendix1.

55

The issues covered in the vignette, some of them implicitly rather than obviously,includedthose thatTrinderetal identifiedascommonproblemsthatLiPsstruggle topresentatcourt:98

Ø Apotentialrisktochildsafetyinvolvingboththeneedforasafeenvironmentforcontactandanallegationofdruguse;

Ø Apotentialdomesticviolencehistory;Ø Issues related to potentially poor advice from informal sources and the

confidentialnatureoffamilyproceedings;Ø ThepurposeandstructureofaFirstHearingDisputeResolutionAppointment;Ø TheroleofMediationInformationandAssessmentMeetings.

And,lessobviously,butpotentially:

Ø Drugtestingprotocolsandsection7welfarereports.Theuseofvignettesinaninterviewsituationhasitslimitations(i.e.peoplebeingputonthe spot with limited time to think) and we did not expect any McKenzie Friend toaddress all these issues. In fact, of the McKenzie Friends that responded to thevignette,99themajorityaddressedmostofthemainissuesraisedbythescenario,withtheonlyissuecommonlyunidentifiedbeingthepotentialdomesticviolencerisk.100Asin the example below,many intervieweeswere able to identify general strategies fordealingwiththeproblemandtooutlinethelikelyproceduraldevelopmentofthecasereasonablyaccuratelyandcomprehensively(i.e.involvementofCafcasspriortoandatthe FHDRA; whether section 7 welfare reports would be ordered and, if so, theimplications of these; movement towards settlement; and suggested strategies fordealingwithcontact):

IusetheCafcasssitequitealotwhentheyarefirststartingout.Iwillsendthemaparentingplan,whattheCafcassandthecourtrecommends.I’dhighlightwhat’sgoingtohappenatthefirstappointment,ifthey’regoingtogoontheirown.I’dmakethemawareof theCafcasssafeguarding letter that’sgoingtocomeout inwhich case the marijuana use would possibly be flagged up if there was anyreports.…Soobviouslyhermainconcernisthesafetyofherchildwhichshehastoadhereto.AndIwouldexplainthatCafcasswillcontactherandhimandthentheywill alsomeet theCafcass officerbefore they go in to see the judgewhenthey’re at courton the firsthearing.And to lether fearsbeknown then to theCafcass officer, whowill obviously subsequently go and do a Section 7 report.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

98Trinderetal,aboven4.9915intervieweesrespondedtothevignette.Inmostoftheinterviewswherethevignettewasnotdiscussed,itwasnotpossibletodosoduetotimeconstraints.However,inoneinterview,theMcKenzieFrienddeclinedtorespondtothevignetteastheydistrustedtheresearcher’sreasonsandwereworriedabouthowtheirresponseswouldbeinterpreted.100Thiswasonlysubtlyimpliedinthefactsanditisworthnotingthatatendencytomarginalizeriskconcernshasbeenobservedonthepartofprofessionalswithinthefamilyjusticesystemgenerally.SeeforexampleTrinderetal,above,n4,andLSmithandLTrinder,aboven79.

56

We did not encounter any clear errors related to law or process in the vignetteresponses and, on the whole, most interviewees demonstrated basic proceduralknowledgeatalevelthatwefeltwouldenablethemtogivesomeusefuladvicetoaLiP.As shown in theabovequote, therewaspotentiallyanover-optimistic forecastof thelikelihood that the courtwouldorder section7 reportsordrug testingon thepartofsome. But there are no hard-and-fast rules on these issues, and it is possible thatsolicitorsmightrequestthemtofurthertheirclient’scase.What we did find was that the broader the range of specialist areas in which theintervieweeundertookMcKenzieFriendwork,themorelimitedandproblematicweretheir responses to the vignette. The minority of McKenzie Friends interviewed whowere willing to take on a wider range of cases, including civil and criminal workappeared,onthewhole,lesstunedintotherangeoflegalandproceduralissuesraisedby the vignette. In at least one instance, the level of basicprocedural knowledgewaslowerthanwethinkitoughttohavebeenforaMcKenzieFriendwhoprovidessomeofthe‘extendedrole’tasksoutlinedearlier.Onerespondentwasonlyabletoidentifytwoissues from the vignettewithout any additional prompting from the interviewer (theinvolvement of Cafcass and the need for a safe environment for contact). Afterprompting, this intervieweewas able to talk to some of the additional issues but thediscussionwasnotparticularlydetailedoronpoint.

3.3ConclusionTherangeofout-of-court tasks that fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsassistLiPswith isextensive,andappearstoconstituteafargreaterproportionoftheworktheydothanthe time they spend in court. It might be tempting on the basis of these findings toassumethatfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsareoperatingasasortofquasiorsubstitutesolicitor. Thiswould be an easy comparison tomake.McKenzie Friends are certainlyassistingwithmanyofthetaskstraditionallyundertakenbysolicitorsand,astheCMA,has noted, “the narrow scope of the majority of the reserved legal activities allowsunauthorisedproviderstoworkaroundmanyoftheminordertoprovideaservicethatisascloseaspossibletothatofferedbyauthorisedproviders”.101Wewouldrecommendthat the comparison is made with caution, however. Many McKenzie Friends do,whether through personal choice or recognition of an obligation to comply with therules as they perceive them, place limits onwhat they do; thus themetaphor of the‘halfwayhouse’wasinvokedinsummaryofthefee-chargingMcKenzieFriend’srolebythree of our interviewees. Furthermore, the intensive and distinctive emphasis on aparticulartypeofsupportiveclientcarethatwasdescribedinchapter2shouldnotbeforgotten.The‘mixedbag’ isasmuchinevidenceinthewaythatfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsapproachtheirworkasitisintheirbackgroundsandbusinesspractices.However,asagroup they exhibit consistency and more widespread sympathy with the tenets andorthodoxiesofthecurrentfamilyjusticesystem(inrelationtosettlementandfocusingonchildrenratherthanconflict,forexample)thanmightbeimagined.Furtherresearchwould be required to inform a more detailed and generalizable conclusion on thequalityandvalueoftheout-of-courtservicesthatMcKenzieFriendsprovide.However,

101CMA,aboven20,para6.67.

57

we think we discovered enough tentatively to suggest that assistance frommany ofthoseweinterviewedandobservedcouldgosomewaytowardsremedyingsomeofthekey disadvantages that LiPs experience when trying to manage their own case. Themajority that we spoke to also demonstrated some sensitivity to the limits of theirabilities.TheLegalServicesBoardhasspeculativelypredictedthatthecallforMcKenzieFriends’serviceswouldfallawaywereaprohibitiononfee-recoveryforassistancewithacourtcase tobe introduced.102Wedoubt that fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendserviceswouldfall away because somuch of theirwork does not take place in court and there hasalwaysbeenasubstantialcohortofpeoplewhoseekadviceforafamilylawdisputebutdo not proceed to court. This assessment is not to ignore the evidence that someMcKenzieFriendscanbeunpreparedintheirperformanceofcertaintasksthatrequirespecial skills or better legal knowledge.On the contrary,we think there is a case forclarifyingtheparametersofwhatMcKenzieFriendsmayandmaynotdo,andforeffortstobemadetodevelopnormsofprofessionalpracticethatmightcircumscribesomeofthelessimpressivebehaviours.Thelackof(virtually)anyclearlydefinedparametersontheroleofaMcKenzieFriendeffectivelymeansthattheyarecharactersinsearchofanauthorinrelationtotheirout-of-court work. The range of work performed by a McKenzie Friend can expand andcontract,uptothelimitsofanindividualMcKenzieFriend’scomfortzone,inaccordancewithwhateverneed(oropportunity)appearstopresentitself.Insuchanenvironment,improvisationsandforaysintoareasthatoughttobekeep-clearzonesareveryeasy.Overall,ourassessment,basedontheevidencewehave,andaswewillseeinChapter4,isthatmanyclientscanprobablydobetterintermsofbeingabletopresentandsettletheircaseswiththeassistanceofMcKenzieFriendsthantheywoulddoontheirown.Thatis,ofcourse,notthesameassayingfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsarenecessarilyascapableaslawyersormoreorlesshelpfulthanlawyerswouldbepresentedwiththesamecases.Forreasonsoutlinedearlier, thatcomparisoncannotbemadeandshouldnotbemadefromthisresearch.Wealsosawexamplesofrarer,andonthewholenotserious, failings or weaknesses in the approach of McKenzie Friends. Whenunderstandinghow todealwithMcKenzieFriends inpolicy termsonehas toasknotjust whether in general things are better for clients with McKenzie Friends but alsowhethertheapparentlyoccasional,andperhapsveryoccasionallyserious,risksposedtolitigants,opponentsandtheadministrationofjusticeareworththebenefitsoftheirassistance.Thisisamorecomplicatedcalculation,andonewhereamuchharderlookatthe outcomes of advice and settlement providedbyMcKenzie Friends away from thecourtswouldneedtobeconducted.Whilsttheregulatoryhookforsuchinterestmightbeconcernaboutlitigationasareservedlegalservice,inrealitytheconcernisbroader:howcasesareprogressedandsettledisthekeyissueandthatcantakeplaceoutsidethescopeoflegalservicesregulationentirely.

102LSB,above,n21,p12.

58

Keyfindings

OftheMcKenzieFriendsweinterviewedandobserved:

• Paid McKenzie Friends undertake a wide range of tasks outside of court,whichappeartoconstitutethebulkoftheirwork,thoughindividualsvaryintermsofwhichtaskstheywillperformandintheextentofthesupporttheyprovide.

• ThetypeofoutofcourtworkthatpaidMcKenzieFriendsundertakeincludesassisting with the preparation of paperwork, managing a client’sexpectationsandadvisingonoptionsandpotentialoutcomes.

• AlmostallMcKenzieFriendsgivelegaladviceofsomesort,thoughnotallofthemdefineitassuch.

• Most McKenzie Friends say they actively promote settlement and/ormediationasmoredesirablethancourt.

• MostMcKenzie friendsappear topossessbasicproceduralandsubstantiveknowledgeinrelationtochildarrangements issuesanditseemslikelythatthiswouldenablethemtoimprovetheabilityoftheaverageLiPtomanagetheircase.

• There are examples of exceptions to this rule, with a minority of theMcKenzie Friends we encountered showing evidence of errors orquestionablejudgements,ordemonstratingmisunderstandings.

• Therearesomeambiguitiesaroundthelimitsoftheconductoflitigationasareservedactivityandthisimpactsontheout-of-courtworksomeMcKenzieFriends do. However, the rules around the conduct of litigation do notappeartogreatlylimittheworkofMcKenzieFriends.

59

4.Thetipoftheiceberg:In-courtactivityforthefee-chargingMcKenzieFriend

Asweestablishedinthepreviouschapter,themajorityofworkundertakenbythefee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsinthestudywasreportedtotakeplaceoutsideofthecourtbuilding.ItisneverthelesstheworkthatMcKenzieFriendsdointhecourtsettingthathasmost concerned commentators. In this chapterwedrawondata collectedduringcourtobservations,aswellasinterviewswithMcKenzieFriendsandclients,toexaminetheworkdonebyMcKenzieFriendswhentheyaccompanyLiPstocourtandthewaysinwhichthatworkmightaffectcourtproceedings.Oneof thekeymethodological challenges in this studywas identifyingprivate familylaw cases in which fee-charging McKenzie Friends would be present. There is nosystem-widemechanism for identifying inadvanceofahearingwhetheraLiPwillbeassistedbyaMcKenzieFriend,andtheremightbenothingonacasefiletoindicatethataMcKenzieFriendhasbeeninvolved.ThestrategyweadoptedwastospendaplannednumberofresearchdaysinfamilycourtswithhighcaseloadsandworkwithusherstoidentifyeligiblecasesasMcKenzieFriendssignedinforlistedhearingsuponarrivalatthecourt.Thiswaspragmaticbutinefficient;therewasalwaysahighlikelihoodthatwewouldnotencounteranycasesinvolvingpaidMcKenzieFriendsonseveralofthedaysweattendedthecourtsand,evenwhenwedididentifyeligiblecases,itwasnecessaryto obtain consent from each party before we could observe hearings. In total weencountered 14 cases involving fee-chargingMcKenzie Friends over the course of 34days spent at five different courts.103 We were able to observe hearings in seven ofthosecases.InsightsdrawnfromdirectobservationoftheworkofMcKenzieFriends,asopposedtoself-reporting by them and recall by their clients, are obviously highly valuable.However,dataderivedfromasampleofthissizemustbetreatedwithanappropriatedegree of caution. As far as possible we have triangulated the data yielded by theobservations and any linked interviews with data obtained through free-standingMcKenzieFriendandclientinterviews.Thisenablesustosituatetheobservationsinawider context.Where possible, we also obtained the sitting judicial officer’s view onwhether andwhy the observedhearingwas typical or atypical of their experience ofhearingsinvolvingfee-chargingMcKenzieFriends.

4.1Fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsatcourt4.1.1Identifyingthefee-chargingMcKenzieFriendatcourtIn their 2011 report, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) recommended that courts shouldgatherresponsestoafewstandardquestionsaboutMcKenzieFriendsviaacourtnoticeinorderbettertoexercisetheirdiscretionarypowersinrelationtothem.104Wefoundversionsof the courtnotice suggestedby theCJC inuseat eachof the five courtswevisited,thetheorybeingthattheyshouldbecompletedbyLiPsandMcKenzieFriends

103Twoofthosecaseswereidentifiedashavinginvolvedfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsaftertheevent.104CivilJusticeCouncil,Accesstojusticeforlitigantsinperson(November2011),chapter11.

60

and submitted to the court prior to a hearing. However, there was variation in theapproachtodistributing,filingandscrutinisingthenotices.In twoof thecourtswevisited, theusherswemetproactivelyensured thateveryonesignedin,distributedtherelevantform,collectedthecompletedformandpassedittothecourtclerk(wheretherewasacourtclerkinattendance).Bycontrastattwoothercourts,theusherswesawdidnotconsistentlyaskwhetherapartywasaccompaniedbyanybodyelseandsowerenotalwaysinvolvedinidentifyingMcKenzieFriends;inthesecourtstheLiPwasexpectedtotaketheMcKenzieFriendformintocourtratherthantheushers.Inthefifthcourttheresearchersobserveddifferentpractices,withsomeushersconsistentlycheckingwhowasrepresentingorsupportingapartyandhandingoutthenoticeformforMcKenzieFriends,andothersnotdoingso. Insuchcircumstances, thelikelihoodofnotice formsbeingcompletedbyeveryMcKenzieFriendseems low.TheoverallinconsistencywassummeduponeMcKenzieFriendfollowinganobservation:

There is abigvariation.Yeah,well someof themaskyou to complete thatproforma thing, but they’re different in different courts as well. It’s not even thesameform…ButIneverjustrelyonthat.Ialwaysgivealetterinwhichmyclienthas signedandmyC.V. attached to it.Whether they ask for it ornot I just askthemtogiveitin.Sothat’s,insomecourts,that’sinsteadofthatformandothercourts it’s as well as. Some courts don’t have forms at all. Some courts won’taccept anything unless you send them in, in advance. (Observation linked MFinterview)

Asfaraswecouldtell,aMcKenzieFriendnoticeformwascompletedforfiveoutoftheseven hearings we observed. In the other two cases, the paid McKenzie Friendsvolunteered a CV and a letter outlining their status, which appeared to have beenpassedtothejudgebytheusherinbothcases.However,itwasnotclearwhathappenedfollowingcompletionofthenoticeforms.AlthougheachoftheformsaskedwhethertheMcKenzie Friend was being paid, the judge indicated that they were not aware ofwhether the McKenzie Friend was fee-charging in relation to three of the observedcases.Thismightwellsignaltheimpracticabilityofjudgeswithheavylistscheckingthedetailofanyrequireddocumentationpriortoahearing.ItappearsthatitcouldbedifficulttoimposeafailsafesystemforcompletingMcKenzieFriendnotice forms.The realityof thephysical spacesanddemandsof the courtswevisited was such that ushers were not always permanently in attendance at sign indesks.If,asisoftenthecase,manypartiesaresigninginatthesametime,andclerksaregatheringsign-insheetsforhearingsastheyarecalled,thepotentialforsomeMcKenzieFriends to be missed, or for completed notices to fail to make their way into thecourtroom,willalwaysbepresent.Compounding the difficulty of tracking all McKenzie Friends in attendance is thechallenge of identifying a McKenzie Friend in the first place. A number of McKenzieFriendsdescribed themselves,withvarying rationales,usingdifferent terminology. Inoneofthecasesweobserved,theMcKenzieFriendhadusedtheterm‘legaladviser’onthecourtsign-insheet.Inasecond,adocumentwassubmittedreferringto‘assistance

61

ofaparalegal’notto‘assistanceofaMcKenzieFriend’.105Inathirdcase,theMcKenzieFriendhadsigned thesheet in thespaceallocated fora litigant’ssolicitor.106And inafourthcase,partofthehearingwastakenupbyadisputeoverwhetherapaidMcKenzieFriendhadheldthemselvesoutasalitigant’ssolicitor.Furthercomplicatingmatters,thereareoccasionalambiguitiesinrelationtowhetherornot aMcKenzie Friend is fee-charging. For example, a party in one casewas using aMcKenzie Friendwhowas described as not fee-charging butwhowas paid to ‘coverexpenses’. It isdifficult to judgewhetherthisoughttobeconsideredanexampleofapaidMcKenzieFriendornot. Similarquestionsmight arisewhere aMcKenzieFriendexpectsa ‘donation’orwhereatokenofthanksgiventotheMcKenzieFriend,withorwithoutpriorarrangement,effectivelyamountstoapaymentinkind.Togiveexamplesfrom our freestanding interviews with clients, one indicated that he only ‘paid’ oneMcKenzieFriendwithsmallbut frequentgiftsofconsumable itemssuchascigarettes.Meanwhile another client described paying ‘expenses’ for a McKenzie Friend, whoworkedthroughacharity,toattendcourt,buttheyaddedupto£500.Ona similarpointbutofmore concern, is theopportunity for fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendstodissembletheirtruestatuswhentheypresentatcourt.Thisopportunitywasobserved in one court, where one of the ushers identified a potential fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendcase.TheusherrecognisedtheMcKenzieFriendfromtheirattendanceinpreviouscases.However,whenapproachedbytheresearcher,theMcKenzieFriendinsistedthattheywereavolunteeranddidnotgetpaidfortheirsupport.Wehavenobasis for assuming, and are not asserting, that this was not true; there are certainlyexamplesof‘repeatplayers’whodoMcKenzieFriendworkthroughcharitiesbutdonotcharge fees. But the example, combined with our awareness that some McKenzieFriendsarepaid ‘expenses’onlyoract fora ‘donation’,highlights the impossibilityofestablishing with certainty when a fee is being charged. TwoMcKenzie Friends alsodescribedhowtheymighttakestepstosidestepapotentialbanonrecoveringfeesforassistingwithacourtcase:

Ifthelawchangesandthey’renotallowedtochargeallthat’sgoingtohappenis,Iwould chargeyouknow£10a sheet forphotocopying…We’ll just findanotherwayofdoing it…soyouknowsomeone just turnsupwitha friendoranybodyelse -howareyougoing toprove that?...Thebarristerdoesn’t tell thecourt inadvance, ‘I am coming in tomorrow to represent that person’, it just doesn’thappenlikethat.Sohejustturnsupontheday,theydon’tgototheBarsectionwebsiteandcheckthatthey’reonthelist…Imeanyoucouldjustlie,Imeanyouwalk in in a suit and big briefcase you could just bluff it. (Client interview –intervieweealsonowaMcKenzieFriend)The problem is … that stuffs them because they’ve got all the thing about feepayingandfeecharging-wellmypositionisthat,asafamilylawconsultant,forthehourbeforeIstepintoacourtroom, if Iwanttocharge£400anhourIcan,becauseIamafamilylawconsultant.ButIdon’tchargeafeewhenIstepinside

105Ininterview,thisMcKenzieFriendexplainedthat‘paralegal’wastheirpreferreddesignationastheyhadsomerelevantlegalqualificationsandwereamemberoftheInstituteofParalegals.106ItappearedthatthiswasinadvertentandaCVwasclearlyonfileforthisMcKenzieFriend,whosenon-lawyerstatuswasknowntotheusherandtothejudge;theredidnotappeartobeanintentiontomislead.

62

thecourtroom.AndI’vegotaclientwhohassignedadeclarationtosaythatIamnotchargedwhilst inside.Howaretheygoingtoworkthatoneout?(McKenzieFriendinterview)

We comment on the hints at dissembling below. For now, a key question iswhethercourtscouldandshouldbemoreproactive in findingoutaboutwho isaccompanyingtheLiPintothehearingandregisteringtheattendanceofapaidMcKenzieFriend.Thisis particularly important as it speaks to the feasibility of any attempts at regulation,and/orrestrictingtheactivitiesoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsinthecourts.107

4.1.2Theprevalenceoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsinprivatefamilylawhearingsDuringtheobservationstageoftheresearch,wewereabletocollectasmallamountofquantitativedataonthenumberofprivatelawchildrenandfinancialremedyhearingslisted in each of the courts on the dates we were present for observation.With theassistance of ushers at the sign-in deskswe noted, as far as possible, the number ofcases involving a LiP and the number involving paidMcKenzie Friends. Although theresulting data are not representative they give some sense of perspective on theprevalenceoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsassistingLiPsinthefamilycourts.Table3:NumberofhearingsinvolvingLiPsandMcKenzieFriends Hearings

listedInvolvingLiP

InvolvingpaidMF

Hearingsobserved

Privatechildren

606 325 12 5

Finance 240 41 2 2

Total 846 366 14 7

Fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendswerefoundtobepresentin14outof846hearings,orinjustunder2%ofcases.108Bycontrast,366ofthehearings(43%)involvedaLiP.Thissuggests that work done by fee-charging McKenzie Friends in court is the tip of anicebergnotonlyinthesensethatitconstitutesonlyasmallpartoftheworktheydo,butalso in the sense that it appears to affect a very small fraction of private familyproceedings.

107SuchastheproposalstoprohibitMcKenzieFriendsfromchargingfeesforprovidingsometypesofsupporttolitigantsatcourt.LordChiefJusticeofEnglandandWales(2016),above,n18.108ItisinterestingtonotefurtherthattherecentstudyofLitigantsinPersoninPrivateFamilyLawCases(Trinderetal,2014–above,n4)observedthreefee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsinasampleof150observedcases(2%).However,thepurposivesamplingusedinthatprojectmeansthatthethreeMcKenzieFriendcaseswouldhaverepresentedafarsmallerpercentageofthetotalnumberoflistedhearingsinthatstudy.

63

Thewayinwhichwerecordedthesefiguresmeanstheyarenotfailsafeandtheyshouldbe treatedasapproximate rather thandefinite.However, it is interesting tonote thatthe Legal Services Board recently found use of fee-charging McKenzie Friends to besimilarly low. In theirMappingUnregulatedLegalServices report, they foundthat fee-charging McKenzie Friends were used as the main provider to assist with a legalprobleminonly0.07%ofcases(fromasampleof5,512).Giventheevidencethatfee-chargingMcKenziefriendsaremostactiveinrelationtofamilyproceedings,onewouldexpectaslightlyhigherrateofuseinthisarea.109In light of these figures,we tentatively suggest that a sense of perspective is neededwhenconsideringwhetherandhowfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsshouldbesubjectedto further rules and regulation. Any issues that fee-charging McKenzie Friends dopresentare likely tobe far less frequentlyencountered than thechallenges facedandpresentedbyunsupportedlitigantsmorebroadly.

4.2.Supportatcourt-howhelpfulwereMcKenzieFriends?The seven observed cases highlighted a number of problems related to the work ofMcKenzie Friends at court, as well as a number of positive contributions. Here, weevaluate the contributions that the observed McKenzie Friends made to the courtprocessthroughprovidingmoralandpracticalsupport,assistingwithnegotiationandsettlement,andinrelationtorightsofaudience.

4.2.1RightsofaudienceRightsofaudienceareareservedactivity,tobeexercisedonlybyauthorisedindividualsundersection12andSchedule2 to theLegalServicesAct2007. It iswidelyacceptedthat there areboth soundpublic interest and consumerprotection rationales for thisrestriction.110Withregardtothepublicinterest,theregulatoryframeworksgoverningthose with rights of audience impose duties to the courts that, as the Hickinbottomreportnoted,‘aregenerallyregardedasessentialfortheprotectionofotherpartiesandto the proper administration of justice.’111 Elsewhere it has been noted that it isperfectlylegitimate–and,indeed,desirable–forrightsofaudiencetoberestrictedtoensure ‘that only those who can be trusted to honour their duties to the courts arepermitted to practise before the courts.’112 In relation to consumer protection, theregulationofauthorised individuals ‘providesa levelofassuranceas to theminimumquality and ethics of the provider’ that is arguably essential given the high stakessurroundingmost advocacy and ‘that compensation after the event is likely to be an

109LSB(2016).Above,n21.110Foranexceptionallythoroughdiscussionoftherelevantarguments,seeSMaysonandOMarley,‘LegalServices:Whatisthecaseforreservation?’(2011,LegalServicesInstitute).Broadlyspeaking,theargumentsarereflectedinsevenoftheeightoverarchingregulatoryprinciplessetoutintheLegalServicesAct2007,section1(1):(a)protectingandpromotingthepublicinterest;(b)supportingtheconstitutionalprincipleoftheruleoflaw;(c)improvingaccesstojustice;(d)protectingandpromotingtheinterestsofconsumers;(e)promotingcompetitionintheprovisionofserviceswithinsubsection(2);(f)encouraginganindependent,strong,diverseandeffectivelegalprofession;(g)increasingpublicunderstandingofthecitizen'slegalrightsandduties;(h)promotingandmaintainingadherencetotheprofessionalprinciples.111TheJudicialWorkingGrouponLitigantsinPerson:Report(2013).Above,n2,para6.9112CompetitionandMarketsAuthority(2016).Above,n21,AppendixG3.

64

insufficientremedyintheeventthataperson’srightsunderthelawarenotupheld.’113

Courts retain a residual discretion to permit exercise of rights of audience byunqualifiedandunregulatedindividualsonacasebycasebasis.114ThecurrentPracticeGuidancestatesthatthegrantofrightsofaudiencetofee-chargingMcKenzieFriends,orthosewhoseektoexercisesuchrightsonaregularbasis,‘willhoweveronlybegrantedinexceptionalcircumstances’115butitisreportedthatthecourtsaremoreflexiblethanthisexhortationmightsuggest inpractice.TheLordChiefJustice’srecentconsultationonMcKenzieFriendsreportedthatthegrantingofthis‘discretionaryrighthasbecomeincreasinglycommon’.116Intheabsenceofanyquantifiabledataitisdifficulttoassesshow common. What we can say is that there does not appear to be a consistentapproachtorightsofaudienceandthestandardnoticeformswesawduringthecourtobservation stage suggest a variable approach. The form in use at one court almostinvitesapplicationsforrightsofaudience,asking‘IftheJudgeagrees,doyouwanttheMcKenzieFriend tospeak foryouat thehearing?’.Whereas the forms inuseatothercourtsappear todiscouragesuchapplicationsbystating thataMcKenzieFriend ‘maynot address the courtmake oral submissions or examinewitnesses unless the Judgegivespermission’.ThespectreofMcKenzieFriendsexercising frequent rightsofaudienceappears tobeone of the motivations behind the recent consultation on how the courts shouldrespondtoMcKenzieFriendsinfuture.Thisishardlysurprising,giventhestrengthofthe arguments for the reservation of rights of audience on the grounds of efficientadministrationofjustice.Trinderetal’sresearchintolitigantsinpersoninprivatelawfamily cases identified a ‘standard pathway’, in which fully represented cases (thedefaultpositiononwhichthecourtprocessispredicated)normallyprogresssmoothlythroughthestagesofahearingonthebasisoftacitunderstandingsoftheprocess.117Asthat study noted, the presence of an unrepresented party invariably disrupts thatsmooth process, thereby importing delay and effort. It stands to reason that theparticipationofanunqualifiedMcKenzieFriendmightbesimilarlydisruptive(althoughacriticalquestion for thisargument iswhether theyaremoreor less so than theLiPalone).Even if a paidMcKenzie Friendwith rights of audience is sufficiently capable not tohinder the flow of proceedings, it is understandable that he or shewould attract theopprobriumofsomeprofessionals,whoareauthorised toexercise theright followingconsiderable investment of time, effort and expenditure in training and under thesupervisory auspices of their regulatory codes.118 A neutral observer might beunconcernedbythis.However,thepolicycalculusisnotjustwhetherMcKenzieFriendsexercising rights of audience disrupt or improve the handling of court cases, butwhether the exercise of those rights also begins to undermine the regulation ofadvocacymorebroadly.Putmoststarkly,ifMcKenzieFriendswerepermittedroutinely

113Ibid.114Para1(2)Schedule3LegalServicesAct2007.115Above,n2,para23.Originalemphasis.116Above,n18,para2.3.117Above,n4,p53.118WenoteherethatseveralofourMcKenzieFriendintervieweesstatedthatsomelawyersrespondverywelltotheirinvolvement,thoughexamplesoflawyersbeinghostilewerealsoreported.

65

to exercise, unregulated, litigation and advocacy rights then the legitimacy of legalservicesregulationmightbecomeseriouslydiminished.119The Hickinbottom report claimed that ‘there has in recent years been a substantialincrease’ in the number of paid McKenzie Friends seeking to exercise rights ofaudience.120Ifthisistrue,itisimportantforthepurposesofperspectivetorecallthatthe‘substantialincrease’isfromextremelylowbaselinenumbers.Ourfindingsonthisissue suggest a lackof consensusamongMcKenzieFriendson theappropriatenessofseekingrightsofaudience.ItisusefulheretoborrowfromTrinderetal’smetaphoricaldescriptionofstandard(i.e.fullyrepresented)courtproceedings:

Ifoneweretothinkofacourthearingasastageplay,thetwolawyerswouldbethe actors on the stage. They are at the centre of the action, doing all thestageworktopresenttheplay(theirclient’scase).Thejudgeisthedirectorgivingsome guidance on how the actors play their roles and ultimately deciding thefutureoftheplay,i.e.makingadecision.Thepartiesaretheaudience.Theywillhave been briefed by their lawyers about what is likely to happen, much likereading a theatre programme. They are likely to review the play with theirlawyer-actorafterwards.Intheplay/hearing,however,theyaremostlywatching,rarelyacting.121

Inthisanalogy,LiPsareeffectivelyforcedintotheroleofunrehearsed,untrainedactor,oftenmissingcues, intrudingontheperformancesofothersand/oraddingunscriptedmelodrama.Basedonourresearch,wesuggestthatthepaidMcKenzieFriendcanplayseveral functions that improve on this scenario to greater and lesser degrees. Theserolesaresummarisedinthefollowingtable.Table4:McKenzieFriendapproachestoRightsofAudience

119Thereis,ofcourse,acaseforarguingthatthelegitimacyofthecurrentapproachtolegalservicesregulationinrespectofthereservationofcertainactivitiesshouldbechallengedinthepost-LASPOenvironmentinwhichlitigantsarelessabletoaccesssupportfromauthorisedprovidersofthereservedactivities.120Above,n2,para6.8.121Above,n4,p53

McKenzieFriendrole Featuresoftherole RequestsRoA:

Thecoach(7observedand/orinterviewedMcKenzieFriends)

Orthodoxrole:moralsupport;takingnotes;quietadviceonproceedings;preparingLiPpriortothehearing.

Never

Theunderstudy(14observedand/orinterviewedMcKenzieFriends)

Asdescribedforthe‘coach’,but:1.IfLiPstruggleswillsupportapplicationforRoA;2.Willstepinifaskedtobyjudge.

Occasionally–whenneeded

Thefrustratedactor(4observed/interviewedMcKenzieFriends)

RepeatedRoArequests;addressingthejudgewithoutRoAbeinggranted.

Frequentlyoralways

66

a.Therestrainedapproach:McKenzieFriendsascoachesAsthetableillustrates,themajorityofMcKenzieFriendsweheardfromdidnotseeoraladvocacyinthecourtroomasanintegralpartoftheirrole.122ThisreinforcestheviewthattheSocietyofProfessionalMcKenzieFriends(SPMF)recentlyreportedtotheCMA:‘thetypicalmodelofaMcKenzieFriendisthat,forshortdirectionsorpre-trialhearings,the litigant exercises the rightof audiencepersonally, relyingonprior guidance fromtheMcKenzieFriendandpromptingfromtheMcKenzieFriendduringthehearing.’123In a hearing where the audience member has become an amateur player in theproceedings,theroleofthecoachistoassisttheminperformingthisroletothebestoftheir ability, rather than to perform themselves. Examples of this pure coaching rolewereseeninanumberofthefreestandinginterviewswherethefee-chargingMcKenzieFriend emphasised that they never ask for rights of audience. Our interviews withclients further support this finding, with a number of clients commenting that theirMcKenzieFriendhadnotspokenforthemincourt.Itwasnotuncommonforclientstoexplain this by noting that McKenzie Friends are not allowed to speak in court,suggestingthatthepositionhadbeenpresentedveryclearlytotheminthoseterms.

Various reasons were given by McKenzie Friends who preferred to avoid rights ofaudience.Forsome,therewassimplynoneed:

Idon’tneedrightsofaudience,Imeanalotofmyclientsare,youknow,theyarewell spoken, theydoaperfectlygood job.There isnoneed. (McKenzieFriendinterview)A lotofpeople that Ihelp…becauseofall thoseproblemsthat they’vegot, they’dstruggle to hold a conversationwith a bus driver let alone a judge. So, yes, theywouldprobablylovemetorepresentthembutactuallyIseldomdoitbecausewhenyougetintocourtyoufindthatmostpeopledook.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Somedidnotviewspeakingincourtaspartoftheirrole,whileothersdidnotaskforrightsofaudiencebecauseoftheirlevelofexperience.AtoneendofthespectrumthisincludedanewMcKenzieFriendwhodidnotfeeltheywereexperiencedenough,whileat the other end, a non-practising solicitor wished to maintain a clear distinctionbetween their former role as a lawyer and new role as a McKenzie Friend. Otherssimilarly described rights of audience as being outside the scope of their role. Other‘coaching-orientated’ McKenzie Friends appeared more comfortable describingthemselvesasempoweringLiPstobecomemorecapableparticipants:

Ialso think that ifyouhaveaclientwhohasbeenempowered todo theirowncasethatafterittheywillbeinamuchmorepositiveposition,eveniftheydidn’tgetwhattheywanted,butpsychologicallytheyareinastrongerpositiontomoveonwiththeirlivesmuchquickerandIdon’tthinkyouneedtounderestimatetheimportanceofthat.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

It would take a different study to assess reliably the extent to which paidMcKenzieFriendsareeffectiveinempoweringLiPstoimprovequalitativelytheirparticipationin

122This‘majority’combinesthe‘coach’and‘understudy’approaches.123Above,n21,para13,AppendixG5

67

proceedings. As noted in chapter three, McKenzie Friend responses to our vignettescenarios did suggest that amajority had reasonable levels of procedural awarenessthatought tobeuseful and reassuringwhencommunicated toLiPs. In termsofwhatour observations added to that picture, the researchers felt that, on balance, theMcKenzieFriendhadapositive influenceon thehearingprocess in fouroutof sevencases. In two of those four cases, the judge gave a similar assessment in informalcomments after the case.124 In one further case the impact of the McKenzie Friendappearedneutral(i.e.neitherdiscerniblynegativenorpositive).Toaddafurtherperspective,anumberoftheclientsweinterviewedarguedthattheyfelt more confident in court as a result of their McKenzie Friend’s guidance andpresence:

I felt I was still in control of the process. Yeah, I wouldn’t be represented bythem,I’dberepresentingmyselfasalitigantinpersonbutthenI’dhavebackup…Itsurprisedme,yeah,justgoingintothecourt-quiteintimidating.Itwasmorethan I thought it would be. Quite intimidating, and very reassuring to havesomeonewithmewhoknowstheprocedures.(Clientinterview)

JusthavinghertheremademefeelfarmoreateasethatIwasdoingtherightthing,

andthatIwasarmedwithalltheknowledgeIhadandalltheknowledgeshe’dhelpedme…Itwasjustamatterofbeingmoreconfidentwithher.(Clientinterview)

McKenzieFrienduseofdirectaccessbarristersAccordingtotheSPMF,‘Whenitcomestothefinalhearingorothersubstantialhearingswhich involve cross examination ofwitnesses and oral legal argument, theMcKenzieFriend will often advise the litigant to engage a public access barrister for that onehearing, and may recommend a particular barrister for the task.’125 Again, our dataprovides some support for this.More than half of our interviewedMcKenzie Friendsreportedhavingrecommendedthattheirclientsengageadirectaccessbarrister(DAB)forparticularhearings,withacouplestatingthattheydothisroutinely:

IamnottrainedincrossexaminationandthereisnowaythatIwouldwanttobeinthatsituationso,justasIwouldhavedoneinpractice,ifIthinkthatthisisahearingwhere thispersonneeds toberepresented, theyneed tobe therewithsomebodywhohasguaranteedrightsofaudience.…then,youknow, Iwillsay,‘look, we really need to consider whether you actually have a barrister’.(McKenzieFriendinterview)I don’t go into court myself, I use direct access counsel… but I’ve got a goodarrangementwitha local chambers.Theyunderstandwhat I’m trying todo fortheseclientsandthesepeopleandtheyalsomodifytheirfeestoassistwiththatbecause these are people that don’t have a lot of money. (McKenzie Friendinterview)

124Intheothertwowewerenotabletospeaktothejudge.125CMA,above,n21,para13,AppendixG5

68

McKenzieFriendswithinoursamplesuggestedthattheywouldreferclientstoDABsinsituationswheretheyfeltthattheLiPneededspecialisedassistanceatcourt,orifaLiPclient wanted someone to have an automatic right of audience. Several McKenzieFriendssaidthattheyhavetheirownlistofdirectaccessbarristers(and,occasionally,solicitors)thattheywillrecommend.It is interesting to note that the McKenzie Friends in our sample with relevantqualifications appeared to bemore inclined than thosewithout suchqualifications torecommendDABs–indeedtheymadeupthemajorityofthosewhosaidtheydidso.Wecannotsayforsurewhythisisbutitseemslikelythatitisattributabletofamiliarityandcomfort with conventional legal processes on the part of those with relevantqualificationsandexperience.OurclientinterviewsprovidedsupportforMcKenzieFriends’reportsthattheyengageDABs;eightintervieweeshadusedabarristerwiththerecommendationorapprovaloftheir McKenzie Friends. It is possible that there is unexploited potential forcollaboration between fee-charging McKenzie Friends and DABs (or unbundledsolicitors’ services, although some McKenzie Friend clients we spoke to were moresceptical of solicitors, given their previous personal experiences). In the rightcircumstances (which would, of course, involve competent McKenzie Friends) suchcollaborationcoulddeliverinnovativepackagesof(more)affordablelegalservices.Ourclient interviewsrevealeda certain resourcefulnesson thepartofmorecapableLiPs,withsomedescribinghowtheyproactivelyandcreativelydrewsupportfrommultiplesources.Consistentwiththis,twoclientintervieweeshaddecidedtouseaDABoftheirownvolition(thoughboth indicated that theirMcKenzieFriendwashappywith theirdecision):

Iactuallydidn’tbringmyMcKenzieFriendforthefinalhearing.IdecidedforthefinalhearingIhiredabarrister…IfeltIshouldn’tskimponthatfinalhearingasIwasconcerneditwouldbeworthwhileandthatIwouldgetabetterresultifIhadabarristerwhowasdoingthiseveryday.Itwasmyowndecisionbut[McKenzieFriend]quiteunderstood.(Clientinterview)

b.Thepragmaticapproach:theMcKenzieFriendasunderstudyIn certain circumstances, where the LiP finds participation in court proceedingsparticularlychallenging,theorthodoxMcKenzieFriendfelttheyneededtoplayamoreactive role, effectively serving as an understudy for the LiP. Our McKenzie Friendinterviewdatahighlighted that, rather thanasking forrightsofaudienceonaregularbasis,many paidMcKenzie Friends only did sowhen they felt it was necessary. Theexamples of ‘necessary’ circumstances presented to us included: the client being tooemotional to speak; a history of domestic violence making the client feel morevulnerablewiththeotherpartypresent;aclienthavingadisability;Englishwasnottheclient’sfirstlanguage.

I rarelymakeanapplication,or Ididone, I think,when therewas,manyyearsagonow,whenthepersonIwasassistingwasautisticandhada-ontopofthathehadahugespeechimpedimentandhewasanextremelynervouscharacter…in fact I believe the judge encouragedme to make the application. (McKenzieFriendinterview)

69

Interestingly(andconsistentwithTrinderetal’sstudyofLitigantsinPersoninPrivateFamily Law Cases)126many interviewees reported that the judgewas likely to invitethemtospeakwhencircumstancesrequiredit.Thiswasthecaseinoneoftheobservedhearingswhererightsofaudienceweregrantedwithoutrequest. Inanotherobservedcase, theMcKenzieFriend fulfilled theorthodox ‘coach’roleduringthehearingbut ininterviewsaidthattheyhadbeenaskedtostepinforastrugglingLiPinothercases:

No,Ididn’twantrightsofaudienceinhiscase. Iusuallydon’t lookforrightsofaudience.Whenthefathersareincapableofspeakingthejudgewillusuallygiveittoyoubyproxynearly,becausethefatherobviouslycan’tsayanythingandthejudgewilllookatmeanyway.(ObservationlinkedMcKenzieFriendinterview)

Similarexperienceswererelayedtousbyseveralothers:

Yeah so there has been some occasionswhere the district judge has, Imean IhaveneveraskedforrightsofaudiencebecauseIactuallydon’tthinkthatthat’snecessarilytherightthingtodoforawholehostofreasons.Buttherehasbeensomecaseswhere thedistrict judgehas said, youknow, I amhappy foryou tospeak,… But in fact, you know in general terms, I viewmy role verymuch ofsittingthereadvisingquietly.(McKenzieFriendinterview)The judge really liked him… I think she liked, she found the solicitor veryunhelpful and, and she found [McKenzie Friend]’s approach very balanced andhelpfulso.Soitwasasortofa,‘yesIcanhearyouwhisperingbutactuallyifyouwanttosay itout intheopenyouknowyou’remostwelcometodoso’. (Clientinterview)

From this it can be inferred that judges sometimes welcome McKenzie Friends’participation inproceedings,andpresumablyconsider it tobeuseful. It is submittedthat any review of the approach to the exercise of rights of audience by McKenzieFriends ought to take account of this reality. Of particular note is the fact that thecurrent Practice Guidance expressly prohibits this pragmatic approach to conferringrightsofaudienceonMcKenzieFriends:

Rightsofaudience‘shouldnotbeextendedtolaypersonsautomatically orwithoutdueconsideration.Theyshouldnotbegrantedformere convenience.’127

Accountsgivenininterviewssuggestthat impromptuextensionoftheserightsforthepurposes of convenience may be common. One hitherto unconsidered approach toresolving the conundrum would be to remove the option for LiPs to applyspontaneouslyforrightsofaudiencetobeexercisedbyalaysupporterandtoplaceinitssteadtheoptionforjudgestoinvitesuchapplications.

126Aboven4,atp95-96127Above,n3,para20.Emphasisadded.

70

c.TheDifficultfew:rightsofaudienceandMcKenzieFriendsasfrustratedactors.A minority of McKenzie Friends we observed and/or interviewed actively seek toassumeagreaterrole inthecourtroombyexercisingrightsofaudience.Weobservedone fee-charging McKenzie Friend addressing the judge from the outset, withoutformallyobtainingrightsofaudienceorbeinginvitedtospeak.Thejudgedidnotobject,andbeforelong,invitedtheMcKenzieFriendtocontinueaddressingthecourt.Of our seven observed cases, two involved instances where the involvement of aMcKenzieFriendhadresultedinaseriousintrusionontheprogressoftheproceedings.Both cases involved permission to appeal on a number of points including, in one ofthem,anearlierrefusaltoallowtheMcKenzieFriendrightsofaudience.Inthefirstofthesecases,itwasclearthattheMcKenzieFriendwasmotivatedinpartby a desire to pursue a wider point of principle regarding rights of audience, whichwentbeyondtheimmediateneedsoftheLiPclientintheproceedings.Thejudgetriedtostressthatpursuinganappealontherightsofaudiencepointmightbedetrimentaltothelitigant–itwouldbecostly,causedelayandservelittlepurposebecausetheearlierdecision on rights of audience would not be binding in respect of future hearings.Permissiontoappealonthispointwasrefused.Some qualifying notes are warranted in connection with this case. The LiP’scircumstancesweresuchthatitdidappeartotheresearcherthattheearlierrefusalofrightsofaudiencemayhavebeensomewhatharsh.128Andsubsequent to thehearing,theMcKenzieFriendsaidthattheywouldnotbepursuingthewiderpointofprincipleviaafurtherappealbecausetheyfeltthat,inlightofotherdevelopmentsregardingtheLiP’ssituation,itwouldnotbeintheLiP’sbestintereststodoso:

TheclienthassaidthatIshouldtakeit[totheCourtofAppeal]butitdoesn'tseemtobeintheirbestinterestssoIwon'tinthisinstance,whichisgoodforthembutnot good for other potential McKenzie Friends in future. (Observation linkedMcKenzieFriendinterview)

Whatthiscasereveals, isthattheuncertaintyoccasionedbythecurrentdiscretionarysystem for granting rights of audience creates the opportunity for proceedings to besidetrackedbythistypeofappeal.There appeared to be few redeeming features regarding the conduct of a McKenzieFriend in the second appeal case. In this hearing considerable time was expendeddiscussing numerous allegations of inappropriate behaviour on the part of theMcKenzie Friend – much of which concerned their conduct outside of the courtenvironment. Therewas little evidence during the hearing that thisMcKenzie Friendacceptedorevenunderstoodwhytheirbehaviourwouldbeconsideredunacceptable;theysaidthatcertainthingstheyhaddonewerewhattheythoughtasolicitorwoulddodespitealsoadmittingthatverylittleoftheirworkinvolvedfamilylawcases.129During

128ItwasreminiscentofcircumstancesinwhichweweretroubledtoseerightsofaudiencerefusedduringthefieldworkstageoftheLitigantsinPersoninPrivateFamilyLawCasesproject.SeeTrinderetal,aboven4,p96129Thejudgeexpressedaverydifferentviewofwhatasolicitorwouldproperlydoinsuchacase.

71

the hearing, theMcKenzie Friend presented as argumentative and unable to restrainthemselffrombeingaleadactorintheproceedings.We encountered some suggestions that, when rights of audience are refused, the‘frustrated actor’ finds ways of stealing the limelight and distracting from theperformancesofothers. Inthefirstofthecasesdescribedabove,theMcKenzieFriendwas not permitted to exercise rights of audience for the purposes of the hearing butspoke loudly, constantly telling the LiP very audibly what to say. In freestandinginterviewsacoupleofMcKenzieFriendssuggestedthattheytoofindwaysofensuringthattheyareheardfollowingrefusedrequeststoexerciserightsofaudience.Whilstthisintervieweesaidtheydidnotnormallyrequestrightsofaudience,theysaidthisoftheirresponsetohavingarequestrejected:IhaveabitofagamewhichIplay.Youknowthecourtsaregenerallyquitesmall,especiallyinchambers,sowhatwouldnormallyhappenisIwouldadviseaclientbutIwouldadviseaclientquietlybutobviouslyloudenoughthatboththecourtandtheothersidecanhearwhatI’msaying.Soit’sallabitofanonsenseanywaybecausemyquietadvising-I’mnotgoingtowhisper.AndsotheykindofsitthereandlistentomeandthentheclienthasgottorepeatwhatI’vejustsaid.Theydon’tquiterepeatitquiteright,althoughtheyunderstandthepoint,andI’llsay,“that’snotquiteit,startagain”.Bywhichtimethejudgeissaying,“[MF]just,youknow,I’veheardwhatyou’vesaidandI’vetakenthatonboard,thankyou”…ButIamnotsomeonewhosaysthatweshouldwehavearighttodoit.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Wedidnot see evidence that the ‘frustrated actor’ behaviourwaswidespread. In theonlyotherobservedinstanceofacaseinwhichrightsofaudiencewererequestedandrejected, the McKenzie Friend simply fulfilled the conventional role, effectively andwithout objection. It should also be emphasised that only two out of the twentyMcKenzie Friends we conducted freestanding interviews with said they frequentlyrequest rights of audience. However, there is some evidence that the behaviour offrustratedactorscanbedisruptive.AnoteoncrossexaminationWe did not observe any McKenzie Friends participating in cross-examination.Furthermore, none of the clients’ cases in the freestanding interviews sample hadinvolvedcross-examinationthatwasconductedbytheMcKenzieFriend(or,iftheyhad,the relevantclientswerenotable to identify thatexplicitly).Of theMcKenzieFriendswe interviewed, many viewed cross-examination as outside their comfort zone andwerelikelytosuggestthattheirLiPclientemployedaDABforahearinginwhichcross-examinationwouldbeneeded.In some instances, we were told that judges, or even barristers for the other party,mightrequesttheMcKenzieFriend’sassistanceincross-examination.Forexample,thisMcKenzieFrienddescribedwhathappenedatafact-findinghearinginwhichassistancewasbeingprovidedforafatheragainstwhomtherewereallegationsofsexualabuse:

[I]nterestingly, I was refused rights of audience but I was allowed to cross-examinethemotherandI finishedwiththemotherandthen[anotherwitness]wasgivingevidence,myclientstartedtocross-examinehimandthebarristerfor

72

themothersaidcould[McKenzieFriend]takeoveranddo it. (McKenzieFriendinterview)

AverysimilarscenariowasrelatedinanotherinterviewbyaMcKenzieFriendwhowasalsoaskedbythejudgetoconductcross-examination.Boththeseintervieweesthoughtthat,onbalance,ithadbeenpreferableforthewitnessesforthemtoconductthecross-examination,thoughoneindicatedthattheirownpreferencewouldhavebeennottodoit. The pragmatic approach in this type of case is interesting in light of recent policydiscussions related to the cross-examination of those alleging abuse by the allegedperpetratorofthatabuseinthefamilycourts.130

4.2.2Moralandpracticalsupporta.HelpingthelitiganttoparticipateeffectivelyThe Trinder et al report onLitigants in Person in Private Family Law Cases surmisedthat, ‘If emotional support is the strongest function of a McKenzie Friend the focusshouldbeonfriends/families/thirdsectorsupportworkers’.131Followingthisstudy,wetake a different view.We certainly heard examples of fee-chargingMcKenzie Friendstakingstepstosupportandcontroltheirclientsthatwereconstructive,butverysimilartostepsthatafriendorfamilymemberwouldtake:

I[am]notaversetokickingsomeoneunderthetabletosayshutup.IthinkIhadacircuitjudgewinkatmeoncewhensheheardmesaytomyclient,youknow,‘you’regabbling!’(McKenzieFriendinterview)She [client] comes across as being over emotional; coming across as a nut jobbasically, so I had tokeepher calmandyouknowkeepher chilled. (McKenzieFriendinterview)

However,inthehearingsweobserved,therewereinstancesofMcKenzieFriendsgivingexplanationsandadvisingonstrategy.Forexample,byexplainingwhatthe judgewasasking for or prompting the litigant to raise important points in response to thedirection of the hearing. By the same token, one of the clients interviewed explainedhow theirMcKenzie Friend had assisted them to focus on the salient issues and hadgiveninsituguidance:

Firstly,theyadviseyouincourt,whatyoushouldandshouldn’tbesaying;what’sworthsayingandwhat’snotworthsaying.Theykindoftakeawaytheemotionalissues. Sowhereas Imight be aiming somewherewith emotional drive, they’lltake that awayand then remindyouwhat you shouldbe focusingon,which isreallythechild,notyou…IfIsattherealittlebithazedbythewholeexperience,hewouldproposecertainquestionsthatwouldclarifythingsgoingforwardthatIwouldn’thavethoughtof.(Clientinterview)

130WenotethatthesameapproachwasrecordedinNCorbettandASummerfield,Allegedperpetratorsofabuseaslitigantsinpersoninprivatefamilylaw:thecross-examinationofvulnerableandintimidatedwitnesses(MinistryofJusticeAnalyticalSeries,2017),p21-22.131Above,n4,p112.

73

Aninexperiencedfriendorfamilymemberwouldlikelybelessabletoprovidethissortofsupport,whichdependsinpartonanunderstandingoftherudimentsoffamilycourtproceedings. Of course, the ability of some experienced McKenzie Friends to givepracticallyusefuladviceduringahearingsupplementstheconsiderableworkthatmostof those we spoke to said they do prior to arrival at the court to help prepare thelitigant.AswellasbeingimportanttoLiPs,McKenzieFriendassistancewithpreparingposition statements, bundles and questions for cross-examination, as described inchapterthree,islikelytoimproveaLiP’sabilitytoparticipateeffectivelyinproceedingsatcourt.Finally, a couple of McKenzie Friends commented on the benefits they derived fromfamiliarity with particular courts. For example, knowing when and how to presentposition statements (i.e. by post or in hard copy on the day) to comply with thepreferencesandprotocolsinplace:

Again, there’s inconsistencywithin the courtsbecause, it’s beena longstandingpracticethatonecouldturnuptocourtwithashortpositionstatement,andasktheushertotakeitintothejudgeontheday.Now,quiteanumberofcourtsarerefusing todo that, refusing to take them.Now there’s anexpectation that yousendthemin,inadvance.(McKenzieFriendinterview)It’soneparticularcourt in [area], Iwon’tsaywhere, I justholdmyhead inmyhands because I knowwhat’s going to happenwhen I get there. I am going toassisttheclients,we’regoingtoprepareapositionstatement,we’renotgoingtoseeanyusherstohandthepositionstatementinbeforewegetthere.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

b.DraftingordersIthaspreviouslybeenfoundthattheinabilityofLiPstodraftorders(ataskordinarilyundertaken by legal representatives) poses a difficulty for the courts, with judgesincreasinglyhavingtodoitthemselves.132AlthoughmanyoftheMcKenzieFriendsweinterviewed talked of drafting consent orders in the course of theirwork outside of,perhaps in preparation for, court, there were far fewer examples of them draftingordersattheconclusionofahearing.Unsurprisingly,itwassuggestedthat,wheretheotherpartyhaslegalrepresentation,thatrepresentativeisusuallyexpectedtodrafttheorder.Thus,inoneofourobservedcases,ajudgewasunwillingtopermittheMcKenzieFriend supporting theapplicant todraft anorderwhen the solicitor representing therespondentindicatedthatallpartieswerecontentforhimtodoso.Thejudgeinsistedonthesolicitordraftingtheorder,expressingtheviewthattheMcKenzieFriendshouldnotbedraftingitbecausetheywerenotaqualifiedpersonanddoingsowouldamounttoconductinglitigation.Wedid, however, hear accounts of judges being slightlymorewilling to countenanceMcKenzieFriendsupportwithdraftingorders:

iftheothersidehasabarristerorsolicitorit’sexpectedthattheywoulddoit.…butoccasionally if it’s justme - theother side is a litigant inperson - then the

132Trinderetal,aboven4,p71

74

judgewillsayorsometimesthelegaladvisermightsay,becausethey’veseenmyCV,theymightsay,“[MF],couldyoudraft it?”SoIwilldraft it.Andthenitgoesbackintocourtandthejudgewillsay“Yes,that’sfine”orwillchangeittowhathe or she thinks it should be. But generally judges would normally draft it.(McKenzieFriendinterview)TheclerkjustsaidwellXisarespectedMcKenzieFriend,wouldyoubehappytotake this couple into one of the side rooms and thrash out some sort ofagreementbetweenthemthatyoucouldbringbacktothecourt?…Bothlitigantsin person and I was asked by the court to sit in themiddle of them, produceeffectively an order by consentwhichwedid, it took twohours… I helped theclerktowritetheorderout.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

ThatsomejudgeswillpermitaMcKenzieFriendtoassistindraftinganorder,whileweobserved one suggesting that it constituted the conduct of litigation is a furtherindicationthatclarificationonthescopeofreservedactivitiesisneeded.Thatsaid,ourimpression was that McKenzie Friends participate in the drafting of orders lessfrequentlythantheyundertakeotheractivitiesatcourt.Performedwell(andwedonothave evidence to inform a judgement of whether McKenzie Friends do generallyperformwell here), this is a task thatwouldundoubtedly save judges a greatdeal oftimeinsomecases.Assuch,thereluctanceofjudgestodelegatethistasktoMcKenzieFriendsmight suggest that it is perceived to be at the outskirts of the parameters oftheirusefulness.c.NegotiationandsettlementactivityTrinderetal’sresearchhighlightedthatnegotiationbetweenthepartiesoutsideofthecourtroomisafundamentalelementofthe‘standardpathway’forfamilycasesinwhichbothpartiesarerepresented,theaimbeingtoreachagreementortonarrowtheissuesindisputepriortothecourthearing.ItwasfoundthatLiPswithoutrepresentationdidnot use waiting time constructively and needed ‘guidance, focus and support tocommence and sustain any negotiation at court.’133 McKenzie Friend contribution tonegotiation and settlement activity is something that has not previously beenacknowledged. Our freestanding interviews with McKenzie Friends revealed that allwere aware of the expectation that negotiation and settlement should be a standardfeatureofmostcourtcases,andthevastmajoritysaidthattheyproactivelyencouragedorevenfacilitatedit:

Ithinknegotiationshouldalwaysbetheveryfirstportofcallbecauseevenifyoucan’t come to an agreement on all the issues then you can come to, you cannarrow the issues and I think that’s really important. (McKenzie Friendinterview)I might, for example, go to court with a client on a kind of, you know, initialChildrenActdirectionsappointmentandalotofthetimeswecangetitresolvedthen,whichisbrilliant,andjustgointoseethedistrictjudgeverybrieflywithanagreementwhichisalwaysfun.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

133Aboven4,p48.

75

Icanbepartytotheoutofcourtdiscussionssoiftheotherpartyhasasolicitororbarrister, theywillmoreoften thannot seek tospeak tomerather than theclient.AndsosometimesI’makindofgo-betweenbackandforthbetweeneitherthebarristerandtheclienttryingtomapoutanoutofcourtarrangementbeforewego in frontof themagistratesor judge.Thatworks,onsomeoccasions thatworksreallysuccessfully(McKenzieFriendinterview)

ClientscorroboratedMcKenzieFriendaccountsoffacilitatingsettlementatcourt:

Whenwegottocourthedidspeakwiththeotherside’ssolicitorandwedidn’tactuallyhaveacontestedhearingoranythinglikethat,sheprettymuchagreedtotheconsentorderthatwehadkindofputtogether(Clientinterview)He thenwentandspoke to theother side’s solicitors thencamebackandsaid,youknow,they’renotgoingtonegotiate.AndtheninthehearingitselfIthink[expartner]’ssolicitorsdidn’tdothemselvesanyfavoursandthe judgeI thinkwasquite quickly sympathetic and so did send us out on a couple of occasions toactually,youknow,withaninstructiontohersidetonegotiateproperlyandIleftthat to [McKenzie Friend]. (Client interview – describing negotiation of asettlementorder)

One McKenzie Friend similarly recounted a case where the judge gave a directinstruction to theMcKenzie Friend and the other party’s barrister to go outside andnegotiate:

Sohe[thejudge]saidwhatIwantisyourMcKenzieFriend,MrThingy,wellthatwasme,togooutwiththat,yourbarrister,MrsDa-Da-Da,inprivateandcometoanarrangement.Nowthatisquiterare,hedidn’tknowmefromAdamapartfrommyCV.Sobetweenmeand thebarrister,weworkedoutanagreement.Then Iputthattomyclient…sothereisalotofinvolvementsortofinthewingsifyoulike,outofthecourtroom.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

SeveralclientsnotedthattheydidnotfeeltheywouldhavebeenwillingorcapableofparticipatinginnegotiationwithouttheirMcKenzieFriends:

IfIjustwenttocourtonmyown,becauseIcouldn’taffordasolicitor,I’vegottotryandcommunicatewiththeotherpartiesoutsidethecourtroom,andthat’snotreally forme. TheMcKenzie Friendwent and spoke to her barrister, and thathelpstakesomethingintocourtwithabetterstance.You’vegottohavesomeonethere,and I thinkagoodMcKenziewillhelpbuildbridgesbetweentheparties.(Clientinterview)SowhenIwentfortheemergencyhearing,becauseIwasonmyown,mywife’ssolicitorapproachedmeandhewantedtodoanegotiationinthewaiting-room,which was completely new to me – I never knew any of this side of thingshappened.…Butwhen[MF]wastherethenforthehearing,Isawhowusefulitwas,becausethetwoofthemthenactedasgo-betweens.Iwouldn’tnecessarilyeverhave to talkdirectly to thesolicitor, sohecouldbe themessenger. (Clientinterview)

76

Observationsatthecourtsinthisstudydemonstratedavarietyofapproachestowardssettlementactivity.TheMcKenzieFriendinonecasespentalotoftimetalkingtotheirclient in thewaiting roombut did not attempt to engage in anydiscussionswith theother party (who was unrepresented). Another case provided a good example of aMcKenzie Friend contributing positively to the settlement negotiation process. ThisMcKenzie Friend fulfilled the traditional supportive role in court but was proactiveoutsidethecourtroom,supportingandassistingtheLiPinnegotiationswiththeotherparty. Following the hearing, their assistance in this regardwas commented on verypositivelyininterviewswithboththelegaladviserandthesolicitorfortheotherparty,with the latter commenting that the contributionwas very similar towhatwould beexpectedofasolicitor.On the other hand, one case revealed aMcKenzie Friend ostensibly performing verypositively by brokering an agreement at great length outside of the court room.However, the judge would not accept the agreed draft order that was submitted,consideringitanagreementthatitwaswhollyunrealistictoexpectanendorsementofat that stage in the proceedings. This casewas also unusual in that the respondent’ssolicitor agreed, in the course of the negotiations, to an arrangement that involved acompletealterationoftheexistingcontactarrangements.Assuch,fullresponsibilityforthe ultimate futility of the protracted negotiation cannot be laid at the McKenzieFriend’sdoor.d.Negotiationasareservedactivity?Inafurtherillustrationoftheproblemscausedbytheambiguousambitof‘conductinglitigation’, one McKenzie Friend reported reservations about whether they werepermittedtosupportnegotiationoutsideofthecourtroom:

Idon’tthinkyoushouldbeinvolvedinnegotiatingonyourclient’sbehalf,as inverbally negotiating on your client’s behalf. You should still be, negotiation isobviouslysomethingthatgoesin letterswhenyou’rebouncinglettersbackandforth… but you should not be negotiating with the other side on your client’sbehalf because, again, I feel that that’s conducting reserved activity, you’re nottheclientandnorareyoutheirsolicitor.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

Althoughthisviewwasexpressedbyanexperiencednon-practisingsolicitor,itappearsto be mistaken. Negotiation is in the Bar Standards Board’s list of tasks that publicaccess barristers are permitted to undertake in the context of guidance designed toassist barristers in avoiding inadvertent trespass into the field of conductinglitigation.134 However, the view is perhaps a manifestation of an understandablycautious interpretation of paragraph4 of the current PracticeGuidance,which statesthat‘MFsmaynot:i)actasthelitigants’agentinrelationtotheproceedings;ii)managelitigants’casesoutsidecourt,forexamplebysigningcourtdocuments’(or,alternatively,of paragraph 3’s stipulation that McKenzie Friends may ‘quietly give advice on any134BarStandardsBoard,Thepublicaccessschemeguidanceforbarristers(para9).Availableat:https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media/1725710/the_public_access_scheme_guidance_for_barristers__january_2016_.pdfAlso,seepara12oftheguidanceforthelistoftasksthattheBSBconsidersfallswithinthedefinitionofconductinglitigation.

77

aspectoftheconductofthecase’).135TwootherMcKenzieFriendsreportedexperienceofalawyerassertingthatthePresident’sGuidanceprecludedthemfromnegotiatingonbehalfoftheclient:

I had the debate with the barristers, one vociferous barrister who, duringnegotiations in one of the side rooms, said but you’re only aMcKenzie Friend,you’re only allowed to quietly advise. … I said sorry, ifmy clientwantsme tospeak100%onhisbehalf,I’llsithereanddoit.Sopeopledon’tunderstandthereisafinedefinition.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

[I]n the President’s guidance theMcKenzie Friend doesn’t talk to the barristerwithouttheirclientthere, themajorityofbarristerswouldquitehappilytalktomewithoutmyclienttherebecausetheclientisjustgoingtointerruptandgetallemotionalandnotdealwiththerightthingssothemajoritywilltalktomequitehappily.Ihadonewhocameintothewaitingroom,theconsultingroomwewerein,andIsaidsomethingandshesaid“you’renotallowedtotalk”.SoIhadtosaytomyclient, “Xcanyou just tellherwe’regoingtodothis”,andthenhewouldrepeatitandshewouldanswerhimanditwasjustridiculous.(McKenzieFriendinterview)

These three accounts combined suggest that some clarification of the guidance ismerited.

Although we are not in a position to present conclusions on the quality of thecontributions that McKenzie Friends make to negotiation and settlement, there is atleastthepotentialfortheireffortstoassistLiPsinacceptingthatit isacrucialpartofthecourtprocessandattemptingtoengagewithit.

4.3MiscellaneousobservationsMuchthatweheardandobservedoftheworkdonebyfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsatcourtwaspositive.Butthereisacaveat.Wewereonlyabletoobservesevenhearingsandwithin that small sample wewitnessed a relatively high number of instances ofMcKenzieFriendsmakingquestionabledecisions.Most concerningwas the indicationthat someMcKenzie Friendsmightmislead the court about their true status, and thecaseinwhichthosedecisionshadeffectivelybecomethefocusoftheproceedings.Buttherewereanumberofmoreminorissues.Most of the minor issues have already been referred to. So, in chapter two, wehighlightedtheobservedcaseinwhichaconflictofinterestissuearoseasaresultoftheMcKenzie Friend allegedly having had dealings with the other party earlier in theprocess,althoughwealsonotedthat itwasappropriatelydealtwith.136Meanwhile, inchapterthreewenotedoneapparentinstanceofaMcKenzieFriendselectingthewrongcourt application form for a LiP to use. In this chapter, we related an example of aMcKenzieFriendbrokeringanegotiatedagreement(alongwithalawyer)thatthejudgeperceivedasentirelyunrealistic.135Emphasisadded.136WeweretoldthattheMcKenzieFriendhadwithdrawnfromthecaseandreferredtheLiPclienttoanotherMcKenzieFriendtoassistatthenexthearing.

78

Acoupleofminorissuesremaintobementioned.Inoneobservedcase,thefee-chargingMcKenzie Friend was committed to attending more than one hearing, at differentcourts, on the same day. This appeared to be a high-risk strategy as, had the firsthearingoverrun,therewouldhavebeenastrongchanceoffailingtomakethesecondhearing.Inthesamevein,theMcKenzieFriendinanothercasewascommittedtotravelarrangementsthatdependedonafull-dayhearingconcludingontime.WeobservedoneMcKenzieFriendarrivingatcourttenminuteslaterthanthetimethehearingwaslistedfor,thoughthecasehadnotbeencalledsothisdidnotmanifestintoaproblem.Finally,inoneofthehearingstheobservernotedthattheMcKenzieFrienddidnotseemtohavevery good knowledge of the paperwork associated with the case. Given that thisMcKenzieFriendwaschargingaflatfeeofseveralhundredpoundsforsupportatcourtincludingassociatedpreparation,thiswassurprising.TheLiPcommentedonthispointinapost-observationinterview.Ofcourse, the fact thatthenumberofobservations issmallmeansthatoneshouldbecautiousaboutextrapolatinggeneralizableinsightsfromit.Anytemptationtotaketheincidents outlined above as support for the recently proposed prohibition on fee-recoverybyMcKenzieFriendsappearing incourtshouldbetemperedbythefact thattheproblemsweobservedweremostlyminorandcouldonlybedescribedasamajorintrusion in two cases. Furthermore, as far as we could ascertain, paid McKenzieFriendsparticipatedinonly14of366listedhearingsinvolvinglitigantsinperson.

4.4ConclusionsOverall,thefindingssetoutinthischapterindicatethatamajorityofthefee-chargingMcKenzie Friends we encountered provide support at court that can facilitate thesmoothrunningofproceedingsinwaysthatareprobablyusefultoboththelitigantandthe court. This extends to the exercise of rights of audience in certain instances.However, there does also seem to be the potential for the exercise of the judge’sdiscretionon this point to serve as a flashpoint for difficulties in aminority of cases.Given that thereappears tobewidespreadacceptance that rightsofaudiencearenotintegral to theMcKenzie Friend’s role,we think a clearer andbetter approach to thegrantingof rightsof audienceona case-by-casebasiswouldbe to state that rightsofaudience may only be exercised by McKenzie Friends at the invitation of the judge,rather than on the application of the litigant. To the best of our knowledge such asuggestion has not previously been considered. As it would amount to a substantivereform,itwouldpresumablyrequirechangestothecodifiedCivilandFamilyProcedureRules, something thathasbeenmooted in theLordChief Justice’sconsultationon thecourt response to McKenzie Friends.137 We also saw evidence in this chapter ofconfusionsurroundingwhichactivities fallwithin theboundsof conducting litigation,andthereforeoutsidetheboundsofwhatMcKenzieFriendsshouldbeabletodo.Thisreinforcesthefindinginchapterthreethatthedefinitionisneedofrefinement.What,inconclusion,shouldbemadeoftheproblemsweencountered?Wesuggestthreepoints for consideration. First, any assumption that the minor problems weencountered would not have been encountered in a study of lawyers should not betaken as a given. Numerous studies have found fairly widespread examples of poor

137Above,n18.

79

quality work being done by lawyers, especially where they are not specialists in aparticulararea(thoughtheregulationoflawyersdoes,ofcourse,providelitigantswithremediesintheeventofpoorpractice).138ItisprobablyafairassumptionthatflawsintheworkoflawyerswouldnotbefoundasfrequentlyastheywereinourobservedsampleofMcKenzieFriendcases.Evenifthatwere the case thisbringsus toour secondpoint.Asnoted in the introduction to thisreport, theappropriatequestion isnotwhether the litigantsweobservedwouldhavebeen better off with a lawyer, butwhether theywould have beenworse off withouttheir fee-chargingMcKenzie Friends.Wehave suggested above that theproblemsweobserved were not sufficient to outweigh the advantages that the McKenzie FriendbroughtfortheLiPand/orthecourtinfouroftheobservedcases.Inafurthercase,wejudgedtheimpactoftheMcKenzieFriendtobeneutralandinoneofthecasesinwhichproblems arose as a result of a protest against refusal to let the McKenzie Friendexerciserightsofaudience,theMcKenzieFriendappearedtohaveprovidedveryusefulassistanceoutofcourt.This, of course, is a judgement formed on the basis of limited observations. Firmerconclusionsonwhethertheadvantagesoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsoutweighthedisadvantages at court could only be drawn followingmore extensive research. Suchresearchwouldbedifficulttodesigngiventheobstaclesthattheexistingsystemposestoreliable identificationofcases inwhichMcKenzieFriendsareassisting.Assuchwethink theCompetitionandMarketingAuthority’s recentrecommendation thatHMCTSshould look to adapt data sources in order better to collect information related toMcKenzieFriendsisworthyofseriousconsideration.139

138Thisincludesarecentstudyrevealinggreatvariabilityinthequalityofadvocacyprovidedinyouthproceedings:AWigzell,AKirbyandJJacobson,Theyouthproceedingsadvocacyreview:finalreport(BarStandardsBoard,November2015).SeealsoRMoorhead,APatersonandASherr,‘Contestingprofessionalism:Legalaidandnon-lawyersinEnglandandWales’[2003]37LawandSocietyReview765,RMoorheadandMSefton,LitigantsinPerson:UnrepresentedLitigantsinFirstInstanceProceedings(DepartmentforConstitutionalAffairs2005)andIFFResearch(2011),UnderstandingtheConsumerExperienceofWill-WritingServices(LegalServicesBoard,LegalServicesConsumerPanel,OfficeofFairTradingandSolicitorsRegulationAuthority).Availableat<http://www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/what_we_do/Research/Publications/pdf/lsb_will_writing_report_final.pdf>.139Aboven20,p.272.

80

Keyfindings

• There are a range of practices and inconsistencies between courts inthe identification and registration of attendance of fee-chargingMcKenzieFriends.

• Cases involving paid McKenzie Friends in private family lawproceedings appear to constitute a relatively small proportion of thetotalnumberofhearingsinvolvingLiPs.

• DirectobservationoftheworkofMcKenzieFriendsinsevenobservedcaseshighlightedmoreproblems thanself-reportingby theMcKenzieFriendsweinterviewedbutmostofthesewereminor.

• Onbalance,we judged the contribution of the fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendtohavebeenpositiveinfourobservedcases,positivetoneutralinonecase,andnegativeintwoobservedcases.

• TheevidencefromChapterthreethatmostMcKenzieFriendssaidtheyareinclinedtosupportsettlementout-of-courtwasreinforcedbycourtobservation and interview data indicating that McKenzie Friendssupportthenegotiationprocessatcourttoo.

• AmajorityofMcKenzieFriendsweencounteredrestrainthemselvestoa ‘coach’ type role in the courtroom and prefer not to seek rights ofaudience in the absence of exceptional circumstances.We saw someevidenceof‘frustratedactor’McKenzieFriendswhoseactiveeffortstoexerciserightsofaudiencecauseddifficultiesandheardevidencethatjudgessometimes inviteMcKenzieFriends toaddress thecourtwhentheyperceivethatthismightbeuseful.

• It isreportedlynotuncommonforpaidMcKenzieFriendstoreferLiPclients to other family justice professionals, particularly direct accessbarristers,forspecialistassistance.

81

5.Conclusions

5.1Thegood,thebad,andthehithertounknownAt thebeginningof this reportwenoteddivisions of opinionbetween commentatorswho have been relatively sanguine about the existence of fee-charging McKenzieFriendsandthosewho,bycontrast,haveexpressedanxietyaboutthem.140Ourresearchset out to deepen previous knowledge and understanding of the work done by fee-chargingMcKenzieFriends,withparticularemphasisonthesupporttheyprovideinthecourtroomandtheexperiencesof the litigantswhouse them.Our findingsrevealedasomewhatmixedpicture.Muchofwhatweheardandobservedsuggestedthatfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendscanprovideusefulsupport.Forexample,our interviewswithMcKenzieFriendssuggestedthat the waymanyMcKenzie Friends calculate their feesmeans that they appear tooffer litigants’ access to supportwith legaldisputes that is considerablycheaper thanthe services of a solicitorwould be; client accounts ofmoney spent on solicitors andMcKenzieFriendscorroboratedthis.Eveniftheservicespurchasedarenotidenticaltothose provided by solicitors (excluding, for the most part, tasks associated with theconduct of litigation and oral representation at court as well as the framework ofprotection provided by regulation), this is important given the legal advice vacuumcreated for many litigants by the withdrawal of legal aid through LASPO. Moreover,responses to our vignette indicated that many McKenzie Friends in our interviewsamplehadadequate levelsofbasicproceduralawareness,notwithstandingthatmosthad no formal legal qualification. The research findings also suggest that a largeproportionofMcKenzieFriendsareconsciousoftheneedtorestricttheworktheydoincertainrespects, inacknowledgementoftheexistenceofregulatoryboundariesandoftheneedtoavoidexceedingthelimitsoftheirknowledgeandskills.Assuch,weweretold that a decent proportion of McKenzie Friends make referrals to barristers andsolicitorsformorechallengingwork.OurinterviewswithMcKenzieFriendsandclients,andourcourtobservationssuggestedthatrightsofaudiencearenotroutinelysought.However,wealsoheardreports,echoingthefindingsofpreviousresearch,thatjudgeswillinviteMcKenzieFriendstoaddressthecourtwhentheyperceivethatitisusefulforthemtodoso.Thissuggeststhatthereareoccasionswhenjudgesvaluetheinputoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriends.Another positive finding related to the reported existence of a strong settlementorientation among those we interviewed.141 We also witnessed McKenzie Friendscontributing to the negotiation process in the observation stage of the research, and

140Seechapter1,pp5-9.141Wenoteherethatitisnotself-evidentthatsettlementisalwaysagoodthingandusetheterm‘positive’toconnotethefactthatMcKenzieFriendsareverymuchinlinewiththeprevailingethosinfamilyjusticehere.Thereisalwaysthepossibilityofalitigantsettlingforanarrangementthatfallsfarshortoftheirlegalentitlementsanditseemslikelythat‘undersettling’isnowmorecommoninlightoftheemphasisonmediationasaprimaryformofdisputeresolutionandtheincreasinginaccessibilityoffundedlegaladvice.FormoreonsettlementcultureinthefamilyjusticesystemseeSmith,LandTrinder,L,‘Mindthegap:parenteducationprogrammesandthefamilyjusticesystem’(2012)ChildandFamilyLawQuarterly428;andBarlowAE,HunterR,SmithsonJ,EwingJ(2017).MappingPathstoFamilyJustice:ResolvingFamilyDisputesinNeoliberalTimes(London:PalgraveMacmillan).

82

accountsofsimilarworkbeingdonebytheMcKenzieFriendsthatourclientsamplehadused.In terms of McKenzie Friends themselves, we discovered that a minority are well-qualified througheducationand/orprofessionalbackground toprovide legal support,and there is an apparently widespread interest in professional development, asevidencedby thepopularityof bespokeMcKenzieFriend training that is providedbysome within their ranks. The clients of McKenzie Friends we interviewed wereoverwhelminglypositiveabouttheirexperiencestoo.Thatsaid,wethinkthispositivityistemperedbytwofactors:first,thefactthatoursamplewasprobablyskewedtowardsthosewith a proMcKenzie Friend leaning; and secondly, the obstacles to consumers’abilities to assess reliably thequalityof advice given in suchahighly specialisedandopen-endedareaaslaw.142Notallthedatafromthisstudypaintsfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsinapositivelight.Asreportedtous,therewerevaryinglevelsofrigourintheextenttowhichthecohortwe interviewed took steps to establish good business practices, such as transparentcomplaints procedures, safe working practices, and reliable systems for casemanagementandconfidentialhandlingof information.Our judgement is that someofthoseweinterviewedweremorereadythantheyoughttohavebeentogiveadviceonaspectsof the lawthataredifficult to interpret.Meanwhile,oursmallsampleofcourtobservations indicated a high incidence of minor errors in procedural knowledge orjudgement.Moreconcerningly,theprogressionoftwooutofthesevencasesobservedhad been significantly impaired by issues stemming from the involvement of a fee-chargingMcKenzieFriend.ToallthiswemustaddtworeasonsforsuspectingthatourstudymighthavecapturedmoreofthepositivethanthenegativedetailsaboutMcKenzieFriends.First,thedesignofourstudywassuchthatitislikelywesurveyedthemorewillingtoengagebranchofthefee-chargingMcKenzieFriendpopulation.Thelistofpotentialintervieweesthatweoriginally generated excluded anyone who did not have an online presence. Aconsequence of this is that recent entrants to this area of work, with low levels ofexperience, were largely uncaptured.143 We heard, for example, from one clientintervieweewhohadbegunproviding services for others as a fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendasaresultofinvolvementwithcomplexandprotractedproceedings;thisclientexpressed intensehostility towards the justicesystemand legalprofessionalsanddidnotconveysoundunderstandingofverybasictenetsoffamilylawandprocedure.TheMcKenzie Friend at the heart of the most problematic case we observed did notnormallywork in the area of family law. Thismight provide part explanation for theindividual’spoorawarenessofwhatitwasandwasnotappropriatetodoinconnectionwiththeproceedings,butthereisnothingtopreventmanifestlyunqualifiedindividualsfromexperimentingwithnewareasoflegalsupport.Secondly,wecannotignoreproblemspertainingtofee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsthatare clearly present but fell outside the purview of the study, such as those outlined

142Seetextton96onp54,above.143Asnotedinchapterone,wedidinterviewonenewlyestablishedMcKenzieFriendwhosedetailswerepassedtousbyamoreexperiencedinterviewee.

83

earlier in the discussion of ‘rogue’ McKenzie Friends in chapter two.144 Whilst it ispossiblesuchincidentsareisolated,andregulatedlawyersaresometimesfoundtohavecommitted equally egregious acts,we should remember that thenumberof incidentsinvolving McKenzie Friends has arisen from quite a small population. In addition, arecent small scale review of the websites and social media pages of fee-chargingMcKenzie Friends has identified problems in how some McKenzie Friends advertisetheirservicesonlineandnotedacontrastinthetoneofpostsfromMcKenzieFriendsonsocialmediapages,suchasFacebook(includingstatementsattackingmothersandthefamilycourts)comparedwiththemoremeasuredandchild-focusedstatementsontheirownwebsites.145AnanalysisofthewebpagesofMcKenzieFriendsdidnotformpartofthisstudybut insearching foran initial listofpotential interviewees, theresearchersdid note examples of information being presented that was inflammatory andpotentiallymisleading. There is perhapsmore evidence of ‘the crusader’, or agenda-driven McKenzie Friend, to be found online than there is in our sample. There iscertainlyacasetobemadeforathoroughanalysisoftheonlineadvertisingofMcKenzieFriends,notleastwithaviewtocheckingcompliancewithconsumerprotectionlaws.Insomeways, themost interesting findingswehaveoutlined in this reportare thoseindicatingthatthesizeandshapeofthe‘problem’presentedbyfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsisratherdifferenttothatassumedinpreviousdiscussionandcommentary.Tobeginwith, thedata fromourcourtobservationssuggests that fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsremainarelativelyrareoccurrence,whetherornottheyaremoreinevidencethantheyweresomeyearsago.ItisworthreiteratingthatthisfindingisreflectedintherecentworkoftheCMAandLSBonunregulatedlegalservices,146andthattheworkofthosebodiesdemonstratesthatotherunregulatedlegalservices,suchasthoseprovidedonline, arebeingutilisedona scale that isprobably fargreater than theworkof fee-charging McKenzie Friends.147 For several reasons it is rather more likely that themarket for online legal services will expand further than the fee-charging McKenzieFriendsmarketwill.Inlightofthat,itisstrikingthatlessattentionhasbeendevotedbythe legal professions to the question of how that emerging and unregulated legalservices sector should be scrutinised or regulated than to the issue of fee-chargingMcKenzieFriends.This is not to suggest that the subject in hand is not worthy of consideration at all.Insofar as it is, perhaps the most interesting findings from this project are thosesuggestingthatasubstantialamountoftheworkof fee-chargingMcKenzieFriends,atleast among those we interviewed, is conducted away from the courts. In this wayMcKenzieFriends raiseasmany, ifnotmore, issuesabout the regulationof litigation,andunregulatedprovisionoflegaladvice,astheydoabouttheregulationofadvocacy.144Chapter2,pp21-22.145SeeAMelville(2017).Above,n52.146CMA(2016),aboven21,andLSB(2016),aboven20.Therelevantfiguresfromthesesourcesarecitedinfootnote23onp8ofthisreport.147TheLegalServicesBoardfoundthatsome10-13%oflegalservicesfordivorcearebeingsourcedfromunregulated,for-profitonlineproviders.LSB(2016),aboven20,p10.

84

5.2Somethoughtsontheregulatoryramificationsoftheresearch5.2.1Thecaseforexcludingfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsfromcourtsIt isappropriatetoreturnatthispointtotherecentproposalstorestrictthebasisonwhich McKenzie Friends can charge a fee for support provided at court. It will berecalledthattheLordChiefJustice’sconsultationsoughtviewsonaproposalto:

…prohibitrecoveryofexpensesandfeesincurredbyMcKenzieFriends…throughprovidingthattheprovisionofreasonableassistanceincourt,theexerciseofarightofaudienceorofarighttoconduct litigationshouldonlybepermittedwheretheMcKenzieFriendisneitherdirectlynorindirectlyinreceiptofremuneration.148

TheCMArecentlypresentedthisview:

Unauthorised providerswho operate as ‘paid’McKenzie Friendsmay provide animportant service to the vulnerable and those who cannot afford to instruct asolicitor or barrister. As not having advocacy or litigation support during legalproceedingsispotentiallyveryrisky,anyreformsaimedatreducingincentivesforunauthorisedproviderstoenterthemarketandprovidetheseservicesshouldalsotake into account unmet demand considerations. Therefore, we believe that theproportionality of a blanket ban on fee-charging McKenzie Friends needs to beassessedcarefullygivenitslikelyimpactonconsumerchoice.149

Ablanketbanisnot,ofcourse,whathasbeenproposed;theproposalsputforwardinthe recent consultation would not preclude fee-charging McKenzie Friends fromprovidingadviceandsupportservicesinsupportoflitigationoutsideofcourt.Infact,itisnotclearwhethertheywouldentirelyprecludethechargingoffeesforsupportinsidethe courtroom, as it appears that the draft Civil Procedure Rules appended to theconsultationdocumentwouldonlyresultinpermissiontoexerciserightsofaudienceorto conduct litigationbeingwithheld on the basis that a feewas being charged. Theywouldnotapparentlyprohibittheprovisionofmoregeneralcourtsupportinthewaythat isproposed in themaintextof theconsultation.AdecisiontoactonthebroaderproposalandremovetherightforMcKenzieFriendstoprovideanycourtsupportonafee-chargingbasiscouldindirectlyreducethenumberoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsin operation, if the removal of one of their income streams made their work lesssustainableoverall.Eitherway,thereissufficientcauseforconcernthatthewithdrawalofpaidMcKenzieFriendsupport in court couldbe to thedetrimentof some litigants.Otherresearch thatconsiders theadvantagesof support in courtbearsout theCMA’sviewthatlitigatingwithoutitcanberisky.AsMoorheadnotes,numerousstudieshaveshownthatrepresentationimprovestheoutcomesoflitigants.150Headds,‘suchquality

148LordChiefJusticeofEnglandandWales,Reformingthecourts’approachtoMcKenzieFriends:aconsultation(2016),para4.21andassociateddiscussionatpp19-21.149CMA(2016).Above,n20,p175.150RMoorhead,‘PrecariousProfessionalism:SomeEmpiricalandBehaviouralPerspectivesonLawyers’(2014)67CurrentLegalProblems447.

85

representation is not confined to clients represented by qualified lawyers; specialistnon-lawyeradviserscanperformathigherorsimilar levelsofqualitywhere theyarepermitted to practise’.151 Moorhead et al also emphasise that the quality of non-qualifiedadvisersmaybecontextspecific;152theywerelookingatspecialisedadvisersinnon-profitorganisations.Greineretal’sworkemphasisestheimportanceofcontext,specialization and the ways in which courts work when comparing unbundled legalassistance: they think some approaches to judging put a premium on the need forspecialised, adversarial lawyers.153This is a reminder that courtsmight adapt todealmorejustlywithlitigantsinpersonandMcKenzieFriends.Thisstudy identifiesrisks thatcouldbeexplored further,but inourviewthecase forexcluding fee-chargingMcKenzie Friends from the courts has not yet beenmade out.FormanyLiPs, thechoice isbetweenbeingunsupportedorusingaMcKenzieFriend;freesupport is limitedandpaying for lawyers isbeyondtheirmeans.154Furthermore,the fee-charging McKenzie Friends in our sample, on the whole, seemed sufficientlycompetenttoimproveonLiPs’abilitiestomanagetheircases.Wehavealsofoundthatfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsarehighlyvaluedbyatleastsomeclients,andthattheyoffersomethingdifferentinnaturefromtraditionalservicesofsolicitorsandbarristers(somethingthatis,inpart,almosttangentialtotheprocessitself).Granted,fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsoccasionallyflounderbut,alone,LiPsdoallthatweobservedinthatrespectandmore.155Ouridentificationofsomerisksandproblemssuggeststhatquestionsaboutthequalityoftheworkdonebyfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsremain.Amoredetailedevaluationof their services than this study afforded would involve capturing data from: largernumbersofMcKenzieFriends,aswellasopponentsandlitigantsinvolvedincasestheyworkon;moredirectobservationoftheirworkinside,outsideandawayfromcourt;aswell as consideration of how theymarket their services. Such a study should, in ourview,beconductedbutanyeffortsonthisfrontwillbelimitedunlessanduntilbettermechanismsforidentifyingMcKenzieFriendinvolvementincasesareestablished.Onlya studyof greater scale and scope is likely to change the calculusof risk sufficient tojustify measures that would substantially curtail the provision of McKenzie Friendservices,inoroutofcourt.Thisdoesnotmeanthat there isnocaseatall forreflectingonwhether thework forfee-charging McKenzie Friends should be the subject of some form of regulatoryscrutiny.156 Our view is quite the opposite – there is enough that is concerning in

151Ibid,p448.152RMoorhead,ASherrandAPaterson(2003).Above,n24.153DJamesGreinerandCassandraWolosPattanayak,‘RandomizedEvaluationinLegalAssistance:WhatDifferenceDoesRepresentation(OfferandActualUse)Make?’[2012]YaleLawJournal2118;DJamesGreiner,CassandraWolosPattanayakandJonathanHennessy,‘TheLimitsofUnbundledLegalAssistance:ARandomizedStudyinaMassachusettsDistrictCourtandProspectsfortheFuture’(2012)126Harv.L.Rev.901.154LSCPReport(2014).Above,n5,para1.7,page3.155SeeTrinderetal(2014).Above,n4.156AsZuckermannotes,itisfollytosuggestthattheonlyoptionsareacceptanceofthecurrentsituationoranoutrightban.Arangeofmid-wayinterventionsexistbetweenthosetwoextremes.AZuckerman,‘Thecourt'sapproachtoMcKenziefriends-aconsultation,February2016-noimprovementinassistancetounrepresentedlitigants’[2016]35(4)CivilJusticeQuarterly268-278.

86

relation to fee-chargingMcKenzie Friends tomerit efforts to tackle the worst of thesector.Currently, almost all the risk that is entailed inusinga fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendfallsontheclient,asopposedtotheserviceprovider.Someoftheriskisborneby the justice system too. This cannot be right. It is no indictment on the core ofseeminglyhelpfulMcKenzieFriendsthatthereisaperipheralgroupwhoareatbestill-equippedtodowhattheydoandatworstprofoundlydamagingtotheirclientsand/orthejusticesystem.Rather,itisanindictmentonthesystemthatenablesthemtodoit.Thereinliesthecaseforinterventionofsomesort.

5.2.2MindtheregulatorygapWewouldaddtothisthecaseforrationalizingthecurrentapproachtoregulatinglegalservicesthatthisresearchhashighlighted–acasethatstandsirrespectiveofwhetherone regardsMcKenzie Friends as helping unrepresented LiPs to do better than theywouldhavedonealone.Theprofessions’anxietiesaboutMcKenzieFriendsarenodoubtpartlymotivatedbybadexperiences-directorvicarious-withsomeMcKenzieFriends.But they are also prompted by theway inwhichMcKenzie Friendswork around thereservation of litigation and advocacy. This has the potential to delegitimise legalservicesregulationandposerisks toclientsandtheworkof thecourts.Totheextentthatthishasbeenrecognised,thepolicydebatethusfarhasconcentratedonthetipoftheiceberg:whathappensincourt.Aswehaveshown,thisisimportant.ButwhatliesbeneaththesurfaceintermsoftheworkMcKenzieFriendsdooutsideofcourtisalmostcertainly more important; it is quantitatively more significant (more cases involveassistance from than appearances in court by paidMcKenzie Friends) and itmay bemore substantively significant (as this preparatory work shapes outcomes in bothhearingsandout-of-courtsettlements).The out-of-court support provided by McKenzie Friends - often including advice onsettlement, process and strategy - effectively means that the risks that regulation oflitigation is designed to manage are posed whether or not one regards McKenzieFriendsaslitigatingoradvocatingfortheirclients.Consequently,whileitiscommontothinkofMcKenzieFriendsasposingachallengetorightsofadvocacy,asaresultofthisresearchwethinkthebiggestpotentialchallengeistotheregulationoflitigation.Whatitmeanstoconduct litigation isnotclear.Wehaveseenthat, inpractice, fee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsarerestrictedfromdoingverylittlebytheprohibitionontheconductof litigation by unauthorised and unregulated individuals. For all that it seemsimportant that ‘the formal steps associated with litigation’ should be taken only bythose suitably qualified, the formal steps themselves are administrative (signingdocuments,lodgingdocumentswiththecourtsetc);itisthepriordecisionsaboutwhenit is appropriate to initiate those administrative steps and what should go in thosedocumentsthatreallyrequiretheexerciseofskillandexpertise.Buttheregulatorygapcreatedbynotincludinglegaladvicewithinthescopeofreservedactivitiesmeansthata LiP can be motivated to make those decisions on the advice of a fee-chargingMcKenzieFriend.We suggest that there is little logic in this position and that the conduct of litigationoughttobemorerationallyandclearlydefined,perhapsevenextendedtoencompassprovisionoflegaladvice.Ofcourse,whetherconsideringthisoralternativeresponsesto

87

theworkoffee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsinfuture,157itwillbeimportanttobewaryof anymeasure thatwould effectively extend themonopoly on the provision of legalservicesinanenvironmentinwhichunmetlegalneedisextensive.

157Possiblealternativesinclude:suggestionswemadeinchapterfouraboutchangestorelevantcourtrules;theCMA’sproposalthatconsumerprotectionbeincreasedviatheextensionoftheremitoftheLegalOmbudsmen(CMA,2016,above,n20,p142);orintroducingaspecificregulatoryregimeforMcKenzieFriends,akintothatintroducedforimmigrationandasylumadvicethroughtheImmigrationandAsylumAct1999.

88

ReferencesBarStandardsBoard(2017).BarStandardsBoardHandbook:thirdedition(London:BarStandardsBoard).Availableat:https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media/1826458/bsb_handbook_31_march_2017.pdf(lastaccessed11/4/17)BarStandardsBoard(2016).Thepublicaccessschemeguidanceforbarristers(London:BarStandardsBoard).Availableat:https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media/1725710/the_public_access_scheme_guidance_for_barristers__january_2016_.pdf(lastaccessed11/4/17)Bar Council (2015). Role of barristers in non-solicitor cases (London: Bar Council).Availableat:http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/406060/role_of_barristers_in_non-solicitor_cases.pdf(lastaccessed11/4/17)Barlow, AE, Hunter R, Smithson J, Ewing J(2017).Mapping Paths to Family Justice:Resolving Family Disputes in Neoliberal Times (London: Palgrave Macmillan)CivilJusticeCouncil(2011).AccesstoJusticeforLitigantsinPerson:Areportandseriesof recommendations to theLordChancellorand to theLordChief Justice (London:CivilJusticeCouncil).Available at: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/report-on-access-to-justice-for-litigants-in-person-nov2011.pdf(lastaccessed3/4/17)Competition and Markets Authority (2016). Legal services market study: Final report(London:CMA.Availableat:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5887374d40f0b6593700001a/legal-services-market-study-final-report.pdf(lastaccessed3/4/17)Corbett, N and Summerfield, A (2017). Alleged perpetrators of abuse as litigants inperson in private family law: the cross-examination of vulnerable and intimidatedwitnesses(London:MinistryofJusticeAnalyticalSeries).Availableat:http://www.familylaw.co.uk/system/froala_assets/documents/1506/moj-research-alleged-perpetrators-of-abuse-as-litigants-in-person.PDF (last accessed3/4/17)Ecorys(2017).Experiencesofconsumerswhomaybevulnerableinfamilylaw:AresearchreportfortheSolicitorsRegulationAuthority(London:SolicitorsRegulationAuthority).Availableat:http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/how-we-work/reports/vulnerable-consumers.page (lastaccessed:11/4/17)

89

Greiner, DJ and Pattanayak, CW (2012). ‘Randomized Evaluation in Legal Assistance:WhatDifferenceDoesRepresentation (Offer andActualUse)Make?’YaleLaw Journal121:2118Greiner, DJ, Pattanayak, CW and Hennessy, J (2012). ‘The Limits of Unbundled LegalAssistance:ARandomizedStudyinaMassachusettsDistrictCourtandProspectsfortheFuture’Harv.L.Rev.126:901.Hitchings,E,Miles, J andWoodwardH (2013).Assembling the jigsawpuzzle: financialsettlementondivorce(Bristol:UniversityofBristol).Availableat:http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/law/migrated/documents/assemblingthejigsawpuzzle.pdf (last accessed:11/4/17)Hitchings, E andMiles J (2016). ‘Mediation, financial remedies, information provisionandlegaladvice:thepost-LASPOconundrum’JournalofSocialWelfareandFamilyLaw38:175Franklin, R, Budd, T, Berrill, R andWilloughby,M (2017),Key findings from the legalproblemandresolutionsurvey,2014-15(London:Ministryof JusticeAnalyticalSeries).Availableat:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/596491/key-findings-from-legal-problem-resolution-survey-2014-to-2015.pdf (lastaccessed:11/4/17)IFF Research (2011).Understanding the Consumer Experience ofWill-Writing Services(Legal Services Board, Legal Services Consumer Panel, Office of Fair Trading andSolicitors Regulation Authority) Available at:http://www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/what_we_do/Research/Publications/pdf/lsb_will_writing_report_final.pdf(lastaccessed:11/4/17)Judiciary of England and Wales (2013). The Judicial Working Group on Litigants inPerson:Report(London:JudiciaryofEnglandandWales)Available at: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/lip_2013.pdf(lastaccessed:11/4/17)Law Commission, (2014).Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements, Law ComNo343(London:StationeryOffice)LegalServicesBoard(2016).Mappingof forprofitunregulatedlegalservicesproviders,(London:LegalServicesBoard).Availableat:https://research.legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/media/Mapping-unregulated-providers.pdf(lastaccessed11/4/17)LegalServicesConsumerPanel (2014).Fee-ChargingMcKenzieFriends (London:LegalServicesConsumerPanel).Availableat:http://www.legalservicesconsumerpanel.org.uk/publications/research_and_reports/documents/2014%2004%2017%20MKF_Final.pdf(lastaccessed:11/4/17)

90

Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (2016). Reforming the courts’ approach toMcKenzieFriends:AConsultation(London:JudiciaryofEnglandandWales).Availableat:https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/mf-consultation-paper-feb2016-1.pdf(lastaccessed:11/4/17)MacleanM and Eekelaar, J (2016). Lawyers andMediators: The Brave NewWorld forSeparatingFamilies(Oxford:HartPublishing)Mayson, S andMarley, O (2011).The regulation of legal services:what is the case forreservation?(London:LegalServicesInstitute).Availableat:https://stephenmayson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/mayson-marley-2011-what-is-the-case-for-reservation.pdf(lastaccessed:11/4/17)Melville,A.‘Givinghopetofathers’:discursiveconstructionsoffamiliesandfamilylawbyMcKenzieFriendsassociatedwithFathers’RightsGroups’(2017)InternationalJournalofLaw,PolicyandtheFamily1-27.Ministry of Justice (2016). Transforming our justice system: summary of reforms andconsultation,Cm9321(London:HMSO).Availableat:https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-our-courts-and-tribunals/supporting_documents/consultationpaper.pdf(lastaccessed:11/4/17)Ministryof Justice (2016).Familycourt statisticsquarterly.Family court tables: July toSeptember2016(London:MinistryofJustice).Availableat:https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2016(lastaccessed:11/4/17)Moorhead, R (2014). ‘Precarious Professionalism: Some Empirical and BehaviouralPerspectivesonLawyers’CurrentLegalProblems67:447.Moorhead, R, Paterson, A and Sherr, A (2003). ‘Contesting professionalism: Legal aidandnon-lawyersinEnglandandWales’LawandSocietyReview37:765Moorhead,RandSefton,M(2005).LitigantsinPerson:UnrepresentedLitigantsinFirstInstance Proceedings (London: Department for Constitutional Affairs). Available at:http://www.familieslink.co.uk/download/july07/DCA%20view%20of%20LIPs.pdf(lastaccessed:11/4/17)Moorhead,R,Sherr,AandPaterson,A(2003). ‘Whatclientsknow:clientperspectivesandlegalcompetence’InternationalJournaloftheLegalProfession10:5.Sandefur,RLandClarke,TM(2016).RolesBeyondLawyers:SummaryRecommendationsandResearchReportofanEvaluationoftheNewYorkCityCourtNavigatorsProgramanditsThreePilotProjects(NewYork:AmericanBarFoundation).Availableat:http://www.americanbarfoundation.org/uploads/cms/documents/new_york_city_court_navigators_report_final_with_final_links_december_2016.pdf(lastaccessed:11/4/17)ScottishCivil JusticeCouncil (2014).Access to JusticeLiteratureReview:Party litigantsand thesupportavailable to them(Edinburgh:ScottishCivil JusticeCouncil).Available

91

at: http://www.scottishciviljusticecouncil.gov.uk/docs/librariesprovider4/scjc-pubilcations/literature-review-on-party-litigants-and-the-support-available-to-them.pdf?sfvrsn=2(lastaccessed:15/4/17).Smith,LandTrinder,L (2012). ‘Mind thegap:parenteducationprogrammesand thefamilyjusticesystem’ChildandFamilyLawQuarterly24:428.Trinder,L,Hunter,R,Hitchings,E,Miles,J,Moorhead,R,Smith,L,Sefton,M,Hinchly,V,Bader,KandPearce,J(2014).LitigantsinpersoninprivatefamilylawcasesMinistryofJusticeAnalyticalSeries,(London:MinistryofJusticeAnalyticalSeries).Availableat:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380479/litigants-in-person-in-private-family-law-cases.pdf(lastaccessed:11/4/17)Wigzell, A, Kirby, A and Jacobson, J (2015). The Youth Proceedings Advocacy Review:FinalReport(London:BarStandardsBoard).Availableat:https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media/1712097/yparfinalreportfinal.pdf (lastaccessed:11/4/17)Zuckerman, A (2016). ‘The court's approach to McKenzie friends - a consultation,February2016-no improvement inassistance tounrepresented litigants’Civil JusticeQuarterly35:268.

92

GlossaryBundle:acollectionofdocumentsrelevanttoacourthearingandwhicharenecessaryforthecourttoreadorwillbereferredtoduringthehearing.Relevantdocumentsmayinclude: applications and court orders, statements, affidavits and experts’ and otherreports.Cafcass: Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. Cafcass is a non-departmental public body set up to safeguard and promote the welfare of childreninvolvedinfamilycourtproceedings.Theirworkincludesprovidinginformation,adviceand support for children and their families involved in proceedings and advising thecourtsonwhattheyconsidertobeinthebestinterestsofindividualchildren.CharteredInstituteofLegalExecutives(CILEx):theprofessionalbodyforCharteredLegalExecutives.Child arrangements: new terminology introduced to encompass both residence andcontactissuesforchildren.Civil JusticeCouncil: advisorypublicbodywithresponsibility foroverseeingandco-ordinatingthemodernisationoftheciviljusticesystem.CompetitionandMarketsAuthority(CMA):independentbodywithresponsibilityforpromotingcompetitioninmarketsforthebenefitofconsumers.Consentorder: a courtorder formalising theparties’ agreementabout the subjectofproceedings.Commonlyusedinrespectoffinancialclaimsthatariseondivorceorcivilpartnership dissolution. Consent orders can also confirm agreements that have beenmadebetweenpartiesinchildrencases.Cross-examination:atahearing,questioningofapartyorofawitnesscalledontheirbehalftogiveevidence,bytheotherpartyortheotherparty’sadvocate.Directaccessbarrister:theBarCouncil’sdirectaccessschemeallowsamemberofthepublic toengageabarristerdirectly (subject to thebarristermeetingcertaincriteria)withouthavingtogothroughasolicitor.Disclosure: in financial remedyproceedings, theparties areunderaduty togive fullandfrankdisclosureofallmaterialfacts,documentsandotherinformationrelevanttotheissues.Similarobligationsmayapplyinotherproceedings.Factfindinghearing:acourthearingsetupforthecourttodecideonissuesoffactorallegationswhich are in dispute.Most relevant to allegations of domestic violence orabuseinchildrencases.FHDRA - First HearingDispute Resolution Appointment: the initial court hearingafterachildarrangementsapplicationhasbeenmadetothecourt.TheFHDRAprovidesthepartieswithanopportunity tobehelped toanunderstandingof the issueswhichdividethemand,ifpossible,toreachagreement.Ifagreementcanbereachedthecourt

93

maymakeanorderdisposingofthecase;ifnot,thecourtwillgivedirectionsforfutureconductofthecase.Financial remedy proceedings: may be brought to resolve financial and propertyissuesupondivorceorcivilpartnershipdissolution.Finalhearing:thetrialatwhichthecourtwilldecidetheoutcomeinacasethathasnotsettled.Thepartiesmaybeexpectedtogiveoralevidenceandbecross-examined.InformationCommissioner’sOffice(ICO):independentpublicbody,theroleofwhichis to uphold information rights; this remit includes oversight of organisations thatprocessespersonalinformation.InstituteofParalegals:representative/self-regulatorybodyforparalegals(somebodywho does legalwork but does not have a professional qualification such as solicitor,barrister,orcharteredlegalexecutive).LASPO–LegalAidSentencingandPunishmentofOffendersAct2012: legislationreformingthescopeoflegalaid(publicfundingforlegalservices).Litigant inperson (LiP): a litigant actingwithout legal representation in conductinghearings in court and, more broadly, acting without legal representation in courtproceedingsgenerally.LegalServicesBoard(LSB):independentbodyresponsibleforoversightofapprovedregulatorsoflegalprofessions.LegalServicesConsumerPanel(LSCP):independentarmoftheLegalServicesBoardwitharemittoprovideindependentadvicetotheBoardabouttheinterestsofusersoflegalservices.Mediation: a form of dispute resolution which can help parties sort out a range ofissues on relationship breakdown. An impartial third party to the dispute (themediator)assiststhepartiesinfacilitatingsettlement.Position statement: a short document outlining each party’s current position inrelationtotheproceedings.Itoutlineswhateachpartytothedisputewantsthecourttodo,andwhy.Personal Support Unit (PSU): the Personal Support Unit is a charity providing freepracticalandemotionalsupportforlitigantsinpersonincivilandfamilycasesandareavailableatcertaincourts.Theydonotprovidelegaladvice.Privatefamilylaw:privatefamilylawcasesarethosebroughtbyprivateindividuals,most commonly in respect of children, or divorce or financial remedy; they can bedistinguishedfrompublicfamilylawcases,whicharethosebroughtbylocalauthorities,forexamplecareproceedings.

94

Reserved legalactivity:specific legal servicesactivities (forexample, theexerciseofrightsofaudience)thatcanonlybeundertakenbyauthorisedindividuals,orbythosewhoaretreatedasexempt.Anexampleofanexemptionwouldbewhereacourtgrantsrightsofaudiencetoanunauthorisedpersoninrelationtospecificproceedings.Rightsofaudience:theright toappearbeforeandaddressacourt.Thisincludestherighttocallandexaminewitnesses.Section 7 welfare report: If the parties in a children case are not able to reachagreement,orifthereareconcernsaboutthewelfareofchildren,thecourtmayrequirea report on the child(ren)'s welfare. Such a report will most often be compiled byCafcass.Section 25 factors: The factors considered by the court when determining anapplicationforfinancialremediesunders.25oftheMatrimonialCausesAct1973.SocietyofProfessionalMcKenzieFriends(SPMF):self-regulatorytradeorganisationforfee-chargingMcKenzieFriendsestablishedin2014Spousalperiodicalpayments:atypeoffinancialorderondivorcewhichprovidesforregularpaymentsbyonespousetoanother.Thesecanbeforafixedduration(e.g.fiveyears),or for longerperiods(e.g.duringthe lifetimeofthepayer).Thesumsinvolvedmaybenominalorsubstantial.Skeleton argument: a document setting out the points a party wishes to make inrespectofanappeal,andshouldincludereferencestoanydocumentsand/orrelevantlawwhichtheywishtorelyon.TrustsofLandandAppointmentofTrusteesAct1996(TOLATA):Thisstatutegivesthecourtpowerstoresolvedisputesabouttheownershipoflandandinprivatefamilycases,whereappropriate,canbeusedbycohabitantstoresolvetheirpropertydisputes.Welfarechecklist:Listoffactorsunders.1ChildrenAct1989towhichthecourtmusthaveregardwhenitconsidersanyquestionrelatingtotheupbringingofachild.

95

Appendix1

VignetteusedinfreestandinginterviewswithMcKenzieFriendsCaroline’s formerpartner,Tony, currently sees their fouryearoldson,Ben, fora fewhourseachweekendbuthewants thechild tostaywithhimthreenightsaweekandhasappliedtothecourtforanorder.CarolineisworriedaboutBenspendingmoretimewithhisfatherbecauseTonyisahabitualmarijuanauserandshedoesnotthinkheisalwayscapableof caring fora small child.Heclaimsheno longerusesmarijuanabutCarolinesaysshehasseenit inhis flatrecently.SheisalsoworriedthatheownstwolargedogsthatBen isafraidof.Carolinereceiveda letter fromTony’ssolicitoraskingher to attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting. She tells you sherefused to attend because she finds Tony aggressive and dominating and is afraid ofconversationswithhim.Shehasnowreceivedanappointmenttoattendthecourt.Sheisextremelyanxiousandemotionalaboutthehearing.ShetellsyouthatshehasbeengettingsomeadviceabouthercasefromfriendsonFacebookandNetmumsdiscussionforumsbut she seeks your advice onwhatwill happen,what the relevant law is andwhatsheneedstodo.

96