Finally, someone, somewhere is conducting some research about fee paid mckenzie friends.
A team at Cardiff University are carrying out a research project which comprises three strands – speaking to mckenzies, speaking to clients of mckenzies and observing hearings involving them and speaking to participants.
If you have used a mckenzie friend who charged for their services they would like you to participate :
We would like to conduct a short, confidential telephone interview with you to find out about your experience of using a McKenzie Friend. We are able to offer a £10 gift voucher as a thank you for your time.
If you are interested in taking part, please let us know by sending an email to McKenzieFriends@cardiff.ac.uk. Alternatively, you can telephone Leanne Smith on +44 (0)29 2087 4913.
I think that’s really important because a lot of us are quite worried about mckenzie friends and the harm they sometimes do to clients and their cases (both fee paying and non-fee paying) – but there is very little hard evidence about how widespread the problem is. If our anecdotal experience is wrong, we can relax a little, but if it is consistent with a wider pattern then it is really important this is demonstrated objectively so that the powers that be can take action to protect people.
The project is funded by The Bar Council (who have a particular position on this issue, although they (and I) would say for reasons of public rather than self-interest). However, whatever you think of The Bar Council’s position, the research is independent of them and being carried out by respected academics at a reputable university.
You can read more about the project here.
I’m looking forward to the outcome of this research. My experience with McKenzie Friends has been extremely positive and I’m surprised, saddened and worried about the impact of paid McKenzies being banned.
Based on your experience, assuming a client is using a MF because they cannot afford a barrister/solicitor, do you think MFs do more damage than a client attending entirely alone would do?
I honestly dread to think what would have happened for my husbands case if we didn’t have a MF guiding us in the right direction. This is further compounded by my experience of using barristers (and of the other sides barristers/solicitor) being questionable to say the least. I’d say mistakes made by them set our case back by 9 months on one occasion and by over a year on another occasion. I do think my experience of barristers and solicitors is unusual. It’s been a comedy of errors (except really not funny!)
I’m glad to hear your experience has been positive Stepmum, and sorry to hear that your experience of qualified lawyers was less positive.
Do I think MFs do more damage than a client attending entirely alone?? Yes I do think that there is a significant risk of that in some cases. In others, I think their impact is benign or even positive (as in your case). I have seen examples of real and lasting damage being done, and I think that risk is greater than the risk of harm from either no lawyer or a poor lawyer (I accept there are poor lawyers and there is also a risk to consumers from them too).
If I was going to take my chances I’d rather take them with someone qualified and insured and whose only interest was in getting repeat instructions rather than in any particular agenda. I think that looking at things in the round the worst of the mckenzies are probably sufficiently bad to outweigh the helpful ones – but only research will tell us whether I’m right. I don’t pretend to know for sure.
Do be sure to participate in the research though, because they need a balanced sample.
There’s very little distinction between good and bad Lawyers and the same about MKF’s.
Why I say that is I have many reputable lawyers and MKF’s on speed dial, although the latter is pretty thin, I often direct case work to one or the other, sometimes the responses I get from the case can often leave me perplexed, usually because the case has not understood the advice or is not happy with advice given, sometimes the cases come back to me with steam coming out of their ears saying that Lawyer/ MKF was bad! when in reality they weren’t.
As a veteran MKF, putting it loosely, I have many successful cases, and, the other end of the scale, I have had case work that even if the parent was represented by Pres. Munby they’d still find fault, Re. B 2013 (yes that one) taught me that.
There are many Rogue MKF’s and indeed Lawyers however I do not think it is so prevelant as what we see, we only hear of the bad news stories, sad but true.
I have been published in Judgments even when on the loosing side, is a loss one that makes me a bad MKF! hmm.
I have recently spent a few weeks on a case in Warford, it was quite something, managing to have a judge agree that a previous order he made was wrong and hence about turn and change it, is, almost impossible, yes we could have appealed, appeals are not always necessary, they’re time consuming, expensive, often pointless when the status quo has changed in the interim, so challenging judge vis a vis previous orders can work.
Now only experience allowed that to happen, an unqualified MKF.
We have been treading new ground since the explosion of MKF’s, many courts I travel too are still unsure to the process, some courts are onto it, others I have to pull out the Law books, that Watford case I mentioned, the Judge knew I was assiting the parents, however prior to meeting health issues meant I could not attend, however prior to the recent hearings I sent the Judge my CV and gumph, then at the hearinf Judge simply said hello, nothing further was asked.
MKF’s are criticised from every quarter of the legal system, sometimes I think without Justification.
I do hope this study really puts to bed some of the unfair critique we MKF’s face on a daily basis, we are individuals, we work to code, some of us hold PII and yes some are the opposite and quite frankly are dangerous, we should not be all placed under the same umbrella!
I certainly don’t put all of the mckenzies under the same umbrella. but the point is Jerry that the risks are high and a consumer has no real way of telling the difference. Regulation is about managing about risk across a sector. The McKenzie friends sector is unregulated and therefore more risky. The question is how risky and how bad is it when it goes wrong? It may work well in individual cases but that is not okay if there are others being significantly harmed by it. Regulation doesn’t remove all bad apples or remove all risk (which is why as you say there are some bad apple lawyers too), but it does reduce and manage it so that less people get a bum deal.
Anyway, I’m interested to see the outcome of the research because although I am worried about it and I really do think some people’s cases are wrecked by McKenzies I’m really not sure how often that happens, so its difficult to really assess the risks across the board – i.e. overall do mckenzies do more harm than good?
Ive had only great experiences with McKenzie friends – over the last 3 years of litigation over my daughter.
It would have crippled me financially to imply lawyers to fight for my child’s right to have a father.
In some ways the Mckenzie friends seemed better versed in this aspect of the family courts as they are in and out of the court on a daily basis.
Long may the practice of this affordable access to legal advice prevail.
Rich, please participate in the survey.
This research:
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/research/projects/view/410729-mckenzie-friends
is funded by … drum roll … The Bar Council. What’s the phrase – turkeys voting for Christmas?
It’s also being carried out by Leanne Smith, a long time collaborator of … drum roll again … yes it’s Liz Trinder. They collaborated on the report “Litigants in person in private family law cases” in 2014. You can read that report here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/litigants-in-person-in-private-family-law-cases
I’ll let the reader decide whether the team is this new research is independent or if they’ve already made up their minds.
I’m not sure why Leanne Smith having worked with Liz Trinder or on the LiP report for the MoJ makes her not independent. The research was on a different (but connected topic) and the MoJ research had a very limited number of cases involving mckenzies (3 if I remember correctly, in the main not positive experiences) and they rightly identified this as an area that needed more research as the sample was so small.
Research paid for and commissioned by the Bar Council… Independent…. lol
This research is worthless as it seems they are lacking in evidence as most paid McKenzie Friends won’t go anywhere near a Bar Council research project… With the only aim of slamming McKenzie Friends.
The Legal Services Consumer Panel, the Legal Services Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority have already stated there is ‘no’ case to ban paid McKenzie Friends en masse.
It is the Bar Council (barristers union) and friends who are set against paid McKenzie Friends.
We know there are plenty of solicitors and barristers who are hopeless as well as expensive. There are plenty of McKenzie Friends who are hopeless and relatively inexpensive as well.
Many paid McKenzie Friends have ‘insurance’ and are experienced and qualified enough to assist in family law proceedings, on par or better than many solicitors and barristers.
The Bar Council should be ashamed of its actions – not that it will likely have any affect, except to help highlight an alternative service to its expensive out of reach services for many people.
http://www.mckenziefriends.directory/SPMF%20supplementary%20response%20to%20consultation%20-%208.6.16%20(3).pdf
biltongarzoo,
I would expect an academic institution to have very clear parameters for the carrying out of independent research. the bar council are not stupid. they may have a view about mckenzie friends, but they know as well as you and i that research that was not rigorously conducted and properly independent would not be worth the paper it was written on. they are confident enough that the research will confirm their views to spend the money on it, but they may be wrong, wholly or partially.
there have already been a number of people commenting on this blog or on twitter who have been happy with their mckenzie friend service who are going to participate in the research so it seems likely that the research will at worst show a mixed picture of some positive and some negative experiences. I would suggest we all assess the research once it is out. If people refuse to participate it will help noone.
Lucy
We know the previous research by these Academics was wholly flawed and worthless, yet it was trumpeted by the Bar Council…..
This link explains why these jokers do not understand court proceedings in the real world:
http://www.mckenziefriends.directory/SPMF%20supplementary%20response%20to%20consultation%20-%208.6.16%20(3).pdf
The link also demonstrates why any research from these Academics is just going to be used as a tool to bash McKenzie Friends, however flawed it is.
Anyway, I appreciate your forum and although I do not agree with your views on this, all the best!
biltongzartoo – your link is bad?
Which previous research are you referring to by these academics that was trumpeted by the Bar Council??