11

Competition and Markets Authority

Legal Services Market Study - Interim Report 8th July 2016

Submissions by the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends in response to the Interim

Report

Introduction and Summary

We are invited to make submissions on the issues set out in the interim report by 19/8/2016.

Our submissions relate primarily to proportionality in respect of regulation1. We identify 2 issues the CMA

may wish to consider for further study; both involve adverse impacts upon the unregulated sector which, in

our view, are neither proportionate nor risk-based. We believe benefits may be achieved within the existing

regulatory framework:

1) the MoJ’s Judicial Executive Board is proposing a ban on Professional McKenzie Friends by means

of a new rule of court prohibiting fee recovery by MF’s. We advocate keeping the existing

Professional MF provision by not implementing this proposed rule change.

2) The MoJ’s Claims Management Regulator has effected a blanket ban on MFs in employment law.

This is not proportionate to the risk in our view, and there may be scope for CMR to interpret the

current regulation in such a way as to allow employees access to MF assistance.

Annexes attached:

1) An academic analysis of comments by informed consumers, opposing JEB’s proposed ban on Pro-

fessional McKenzie Friends. (pp 5 – 48) (the comments are at pp 13 – 45)

2) Correspondence between SPMF and Cardiff University concerning the University’s current “Study

of McKenzie Friends in family law cases.” (pages 49 – 54)

3) Letters from SPMF to the Claims Management Regulator (pages 55 – 56).

¹ Theme 3 “Whether regulations and the regulatory framework go beyond what is necessary to protect consumers and weakenor distort competition for the supply of legal services.” (2.7)1.37 “There may be scope for further ensuring that regulation is proportionate and risk based within the current framework.”

22

1/ Judicial Executive Board’s proposed prohibition on fee recovery by McKenzie friends

In February 2016, the Lord Chief Justice & JEB published a Consultation paper on “Reformingthe courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends” containing a proposed prohibition on fee recovery byMcKenzie Friends1 . If implemented, litigants who could not afford barrister or solicitor wouldhave access to some free information, but barely any form of legal advice.

We are pleased to see that influential bodies such as the Legal Services Board, Legal ServicesConsumer Panel, and Solicitors Regulatory Authority have come out in opposition to theproposal as drafted, but the Law Society and Bar Council support it, leaving the proposalunresolved, hanging over MF provision like a Sword of Damocles. Since February, two SPMFmembers have closed their businesses, citing this proposed ban among their reasons for doing so.

SPMF vigorously opposed the proposed ban, submitting an initial response to the consultation on25/4/16 and a supplementary one on 8/6/16.

The Consultation paper relied at para 3.5 for evidence on a 2014 study (the MOJ study) whichconcluded ““it is doubtful whether… paid MF’s… justify a charge for their services.” (Page 112of the study).“ However, on closer examination, this conclusion was based upon a sample size,not of 24 as stated at para 3.5, but of just 3 (the other 21 were not professional MFs) and someanecdotal reported concerns from law professionals (page 112). The 3 litigants themselves allspoke highly of the McKenzie friends who had assisted them, but the researchers considered thatin two of the three cases that trust was misplaced, partly because one of the McKenzie friendswas a fathers rights activist, suggesting a possible bias on the part of the researchers.

A sample size of 3 is wholly inadequate evidence on which to found such a ban, and so SPMFinvited 250 customers of its own members to sign this statement:

“ I do not agree that McKenzie Friends should be prohibited from charging for their services. Ihave received and paid for valuable help from a member of the Society of Professional McKenzieFriends, and I wish to have the freedom to do so again whenever I need such help.”

93 signed it, of which 75 added their own personal comment. These comments are annexed tothis submission at pages 13 – 45.

The Bar Council, one of the leading proponents of the proposed ban on professional MFs,commissioned further research by Cardiff University, to be carried out by 3 of the sameresearchers who carried out the discredited 2014 MOJ study. SPMF offered these 93 statementsto those researchers to assist in that research. When the researchers did not take up the offer,

1 Para 4.21 “reform should prohibit recovery of expenses and fees incurred by McKenzie friends. It should do sothrough providing that the provision of reasonable assistance in court, the exercise of a right of audience or of aright to conduct litigation should only be permitted where the McKenzie friend is neither directly nor indirectly inreceipt of remuneration."

33

SPMF commissioned its own academic analysis of what reliance should be placed upon these 93statements. That analysis is at annex 1. This is an extract from the results section (pp 6 – 8):

The findings show that of the 75 clients who made additional comments: (a) significantly morethan would be expected by chance affirmed the benefits and value for money of the SPMFMcKenzie Friends; (b) significantly fewer stated that they would like the service to remain intact,but this is most likely an artefact of participants’ having already affirmed this in signing thestatement, and feeling that they need not restate it; and (c) over half said that SPMF was better&/or cheaper than a solicitor or barrister.

Of the subset of 11 who were asked “If a McKenzie friend was not available I could/could notafford a barrister or solicitor,” 73% (8 of 11) responded they could not have affordedbarrister/solicitor.

The findings overall suggest that customers find the SPMF service to be beneficial.”

At annex 2 is the Cardiff University research remit, and correspondence between SPMF and theUniversity. The research outline is at pp 49 – 50. SPMF’s concerns are set out on pp 51 – 54.

4) Claims Management Regulator’s role in relation to Employment Law

Employment is one of 6 areas of law governed by Compensation Act 2006 part 2, andCompensation (Claims Management Regulation Services) Order 2006 section 2. Advice toemployees on claims for wrongful or unfair dismissal, redundancy, discrimination, harassment,unpaid wages and other employment-related payments may only be given by persons who areregulated by the Claims Management Regulator or other approved regulator.

It is not self-evident why employment was singled out for special protection in this way when thelegislation was drafted. An employee might reasonably argue he should be permitted to engage aMcKenzie Friend to assist at an Employment Tribunal where the value of the claim is small andengaging a solicitor or regulated adviser would be a disproportionate cost.

Following the CMA report’s principle “we believe that regulation should be proportionate andrisk based,” (1.35) and “there may be scope for further ensuring that regulation is proportionateand risk based within the current framework”(1.37), we suggest the next steps of the studyinclude discussions with the Claims Management Regulator to explore what scope there might bewithin the current legislation to permit employees to obtain advice from unregulated ProfessionalMcKenzie Friends. Solicitors Act 1974 deals with Reserved Legal Activities. A caselawprinciple subsequently evolved that this term applies only to those activities which must be done

44

by a solicitor and not those which may be done by a solicitor2. A similar principle could beapplied by CMR to allow McKenzie Friends to assist in Employment Law within the currentregulation.

As a separate, but related, issue Research into unregulated legal services providers carried out bythe Legal Services Board in June 2016 has uncovered significant levels of unregulatedemployment advice being given outside of regulation. It appears to be carried on quite openly,without any apparent steps taken by the Claims Management Regulator to stem it.

Line 5 of the table on page 2 of the Research Summary indicates that 4 – 5% of employmentlegal services are currently delivered by unregulated “HR/business support services, and feecharging McKenzie Friends.” Business support to employers falls outside of regulation, butMcKenzie Friend advice to employees is subject to regulation. On the face of it, a significantlevel of employment law advice is being given by unregulated McKenzie Friends, quite openly itwould seem from the fact those providing it appear content to disclose the fact to Legal ServicesBoard researchers, and without that fact arousing any apparent interest from the regulator.

SPMF sent this Research summary to the Claims Management Regulator, and asked “On theface of it, our members are complying with the law while others are not. Have we misinterpretedthe Compensation Act and Order in some way? Can our members lawfully provide employmentlegal services, outside of your regulation?” We received this email: “Employment is a regulatedsector and would therefore require authorisation from the Claims Management Regulator inorder to provide these services. Without having specific details of the 4-5% of those who areunregulated and what service they are providing it is difficult to establish whether they arecommitting an offence and to take it any further.”

SPMF’s letters to Claims Management Regulator are at annex 3.

2 Para 36 [2005] EWCA Civ 1507 Andre Agassi v HM Insp. Of Taxes: “...the words “acting as a solicitor” are limited to the doing of acts whichonly a solicitor may perform and/or the doing of acts by a person pretending or holding himself out to be a solicitor. Such acts are not to beconfused with the doing of acts of a kind commonly done by solicitors, but which involve no representation that the actor is acting as such.”

5

ANNEX 1 Analysis of SPMF Customer Comments

Title: Customers of McKenzie Friends say the service is beneficial

Author: Dr John A Barry, Male Psychology Network, London, UK.

Introduction

Many people use a McKenzie Friend because they don’t qualify for legal aid and cannot afford lawyers’

fees (McKenzie Friends Directory, 2014). In response to a recommendation by the Legal Services

Consumer Panel and the Legal Services Board that fee-charging McKenzie friends should form a Trade

Association, a self-regulatory body was created, the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends (SPMF)

(McKenzie Friends Directory, 2014). However a consultation by the Lord Chief Justice of England and

Wales and the Judicial Executive Board (JEB, 2016), recommended the prohibition on fee recovery by

McKenzie Friends on the basis that McKenzie Friends are not beneficial and don’t provide sufficient

value for money. However the report relied on a study with a sample size of only three (MoJ, 2014),

casting doubt on the findings. The present report describes the response of the SPMF to this

recommendation, and consists of an analysis of a survey of users of McKenzie friends.

Methods

Approximately 250 users of SPMF McKenzie Friends were contacted by the McKenzie Friends

whose services they had used. All were sent the letter shown in Appendix 1. Ninety-three of 250

participated, signing their agreement with the statement in the letter stating that they perceive

McKenzie Friends to be beneficial, good value for money, and fulfilling a role which they do not

want diminished. (One MF asked a subset of 11 of the customers to comment on this additional

statement: “If a McKenzie friend was not available I could/could not afford a barrister or

6

solicitor”). Of the 93, 75 chose to comment further, and these comments were assessed for

recurring themes using content analysis (Appendix 2). Once themes were identified, the

comments of each participant were judged to either confirm the theme or not. The frequency

with which confirmatory responses were made was assessed statistically using χ2 for

frequencies. The expected frequency of confirmatory responses was set at 50% (a 50/50

chance), and the threshold for statistical significance was set at p<.05 (5%, or a 1/20 chance),

which would occur if 46 or more people agreed (or 29 or fewer people agreed). The statistical

software used was SPSS Version 21 (Armonk, New York: IBM Corp).

Results

Four categories arose: being beneficial, being good value for money, fulfilling a role which they

do not want diminished, and being better &/or cheaper than a barrister. There were no cases

where any negative comments were made regarding McKenzies, and the comments could be

coded into either (a) stating that they found McKenzies fell into one of the four categories or (b)

making no reference to each of the four categories. Table 1 shows the results of this analysis.

7

Table 1. Statistical likelihood that the frequencies of responses occurred by chance

Beneficial Good value

for money

Fulfilling a

needed role

Better &/or

cheaper than

a solicitor or

barrister

Participants who

agreed

69 of 75 49 of

75

29 of

75

44 of

75

% of those who

made additional

comments

92% 65% 39% 59%

χ2 value 52.92 7.05 3.85 2.25

Statistical

significance

P<.000000000

0005

P<.0

08

P<.05 P<.13

3

Notes: significance values are 2-tailed

The findings show that of the 75 clients who made additional comments: (a) significantly more

than would be expected by chance affirmed the benefits and value for money of the SPMF

McKenzie Friends; (b) significantly fewer stated that they would like the service to remain intact,

but this is most likely an artefact of participants’ having already affirmed this in signing the

statement, and feeling that they need not restate it; and (c) over half said that SPMF was better

&/or cheaper than a solicitor or barrister.

8

Of the subset of 11 who were asked “If a McKenzie friend was not available I could/could not

afford a barrister or solicitor,” 73% (8 of 11) responded they could not have afforded

barrister/solicitor.

Discussion

The findings overall suggest that customers find the SPMF service to be beneficial.While it is not

surprising that many referred to the cheaper cost of the MF, 17 responses (see Appendix 3) also

refer to the MF being in some way better. This is an interesting and unexpected issue to emerge.

It should be noted that although the present sample was not randomly selected (they

were a volunteer sample representing ~30% of the sample frame) the additional comments they

gave were spontaneous and without given direction. However no negative comments about the

SPMF were evident, and the probability of so many positive comments being made by chance

were statistically very small (P<.0000000000005 i.e. less than 5 in a trillion). Thus the likely

conclusion is that the above analysis provides evidence supportive of the continuation of the

SPMF.

Acknowledgements

This survey was conducted by the SPMF. The resulting data analysis was conducted by John

Barry and report written by John Barry with advice from Ray Barry (no relation to the author) of

SPMF.

Conflicts of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest

Sources of funding

The author received no funding for the production of this report

9

About the author

John Barry is a chartered psychologist, honorary lecturer with the Department of Psychology at

University College London (UCL) and member of the British Psychological Society (BPS). He is the

founder of the Male Psychology Network (http://www.malepsychology.org.uk/) and campaigner

for the creation of a Male Psychology Section of the BPS, an organisation which will focus on

issues such as the high rate of male suicide and the underperformance of boys in education. For

ten years John taught research methods and statistics to undergraduate and postgraduate

students, and is the author of over 40 publications in peer-reviewed journals on topics in health

and psychology since 2010.

10

References

McKenzie Friends Directory (2014). Accessed online 21/07/16 http://www.mckenziefriends.directory/

JEB (2016). Consultation Paper, Reforming the Court’s approach to McKenzie Friends,

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/mf-consultation-paper-feb2016-

1.pdf

MoJ (2013). Litigants in person in private family law cases.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380479/litigants-in-person-in-private-family-law-cases.pdf

11

Appendix 1

Society of Professional McKenzie Friends,Registered Office: 11 Windsor Gardens,

WOLVERHAMPTONWV3 8LY

Dear sir or madam,

You have received this letter from a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, whowill have assisted you in court proceedings. On 25/2/2016, the Lord Chief Justice published aconsultation proposing to ban Professional McKenzie Friends. We ask for your help in opposing thisban, so that you and others can continue to receive our help.The consultation paper can be seen on this link: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/mf-consultation-paper-feb2016-1.pdf and below is an extract from thepaper which explains why this ban on Professional McKenzie Friends is proposed:

4.21. The JEB’s provisional view is that such an approach protects the public interest infacilitating the proper administration of justice, whilst providing effective protection tovulnerable litigants who would otherwise have little to no effective protection, or meansof redress, from unregulated and uninsured individuals of varying and generallyunverifiable competence carrying out otherwise reserved legal activities before the courts.

Members of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends are not as characterised above. All of ourmembers have professional indemnity insurance, comply with court rules, meet our standards ofcompetence and conduct, and are subject to a complaints procedure if they do not meet thosestandards (http://www.mckenziefriends.directory/service%20standards.html)

If you value the help you received from your McKenzie Friend, and believe you should be allowedsuch help in future, please complete the attached page and return it to the McKenzie Friend whosent this letter to you. We shall attach it to our response to the consultation.

I thank you for your time in reading this, and I thank you in advance for completing and returning thereply page. It will be of great help to us in our campaign to keep Professional McKenzie Friendsavailable to you and to others.

With best wishes,

Ray Barry,Chair – Society of Professional McKenzie Friends.

12

I do not agree that McKenzie Friends should be prohibited from charging for their services. I havereceived and paid for valuable help from a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends,and I wish to have the freedom to do so again whenever I need such help.

Other Comment...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Signed........................................................

Print Name:................................................

Address ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Date.............................................................................

13

Appendix 2

Statements from the 75 (of 93) customers of SPMF members who made an additional comment.

# ID # (corresponding to Annex2 above) and statement

Beneficial Goodvalue formoney

Fulfillinga neededrole

Better &/orcheaperthan asolicitororbarrister

1 1. My McKenzie friendprovided me with excellentadvice and direction,highlighting the key aspectswhich are important to thecourts and how to focus onthese. He also respondedquickly when situations arosewhich a typical solicitor wouldhave taken much longer toaddress. The cost of a solicitorwould have been prohibitive,I would not have been able tobring my case to court, andmost likely my daughterwould have had to grow upwith no contact with herfather.

1 1 0 1

2 2. Without recourse to theMcKenzie friend whosupported me I would nothave been able to get throughthe difficult process oflitigation in the family courts.He always made clear his rolein supporting me through theprocess and nurturing apositive attitude at timeswhen emotions were playinghavoc. As things are the costof professional legal help andvery quickly spiral out ofcontrol and beyond themeans of the average person

1 1 0 1

14

like me. In my experience thejudge courted the view of MrBarry on more than occasionwhich was a reflection of howhe had helped me present byarguments.

3 3. Without help from theMcKenzie Friends, facingcourt would have beenextremely 29 frightening onmy own. They helped me toput together a proper courtbundle which resulted in mywinning the case and keepingmy Grandchildren safe. I hadpreviously used up savings fora solicitor who achievednothing and was leftdisillusioned and heartbroken when there was nomoney left. At the last minuteI was informed aboutMcKenzie Friends whoimmediately came to my aid.Their costs were extremelylow in comparison to usualsolicitor’s fees. I believe itwould be a grave injustice toprevent usual hard workingcitizens who do not have thecapacity to pay for legaladvice to be left adriftwithout aid. In fact I believethat McKenzie Friendsdeserve to be supported andshould be more widely knownto the public. I for one willalways be grateful for theirsupport, expertise andwonderful service.

1 1 1 1

4 4. I have no clue how I couldhave managed without aMcKenzie friends help andsupport through thisextremely stressful event

1 1 1 1

15

(divorce). Going throughdivorce and family mattersare very stressful in the firstplace and not everyone canafford a lawyer’s fees. Havingexperienced this myself, Istrongly feel McKenzie friendsshould be allowed tocontinue offering theirsupport to individuals likemyself at a very reasonableprice. I am sure the Lord ChiefJustice will consider theabove and make a fairdecision.

5 5. After the first 2 CourtHearings with my McKenzieFriend, the Woolwich DistrictJudge called James Jonklaasback in to compliment him onhow smoothly he had madethe process. Part of how aMcKenzie Friend helps is toallow the client to talk aboutpersonal issues affectingthem, sometimes at lengthbecause no one is available orwants to listen. This can helpdirect the client’s course ofaction & s/he knows exactlywhy they have chosen thevariance/order/etc. McKenzieFriends can sometimes bringtheir own personalexperience into their adviceas well as Court experience.All this comes at a lower costthan if talking to a juniorsolicitor, which some clientsmay not be able to afford orbring financial ruin & thestress that may cause.

1 1 0 1

6 6. My case led to a sharedresidence order put in place.Following the recommended

0 1 1 1

16

route of solicitors/barristerswould have left me pennilessand broken. You want to denythis lifeline to others!! Shame.

7 7. I used a McKenzie friend toassist me in my courtproceedings regarding myson. The service I receivedwas very professional andreliable, I would gladly usethem again in any of 30 thecourt proceedings.

1 0 0 0

8 8. I spent 6 years in court togain my rightful contact withmy daughter who is now 8years old. The first 2 years Iused solicitors and barristerswith limited success ofcontact but a huge bill. Thelast 4 years of court I used aMcKenzie friend. Not only didwe achieve a contact orderuntil my child becomes 16years old, but the costinvolved was a fraction of themoney I had spent in the firsttwo years. I cannot thank myMcKenzie friend enough forwhat he did for me. I willnever forget him. I live inNorthern Ireland but my casewas dealt with in Croydon,London.

1 1 0 1

9 9. I believe that withoutMcKenzie friends people likemyself would be unable toaccess advice and guidancerelating to legal/courtmatters, without beingcharged extortionate priceand unaffordable costs.

1 1 1 1

10 10. I strongly believe thatMcKenzie friends offer a veryvaluable social service thatbenefits those that are most

1 0 0 0

17

vulnerable in society.11 11. I would not have access to

any kind of legal processwithout the option of aprofessional McKenzie friend– the consultation papercompletely misrepresentsthem and appears to be moreabout protecting a monopolyof lawyers rather thanprotecting “vulnerablelitigants.”

1 0 0 1

12 12. With all the cuts to legalaid the ban you propose isnot logical. I have used RayBarry of McKenzie friendsseveral times, at a muchlower cost than a high-streetsolicitor and found himselfvaluable.

1 1 1 1

13 13. Ray Barry and his teamhave been invaluable to usthrough our toughest oftimes. Really wouldn’t havegot through it without helpand guidance received fromthem.

1 0 0 0

14 14. I needed to go to court toobtain a Residence Order formy daughter, as she wishedto live with me permanentlyand visit her dad onoccasions. Without the helpof McKenzie Friends, I wouldnot have been able to do this.I was not entitled to Legal Aidand had no funds availablewith which to pay heftySolicitor bills. Had I not beenable to obtain a ResidenceOrder, I dread to think whatwould have happened to mydaughter – she would havebeen 31 devastated (at thetime she was 9 years old). She

1 1 1 1

18

was deeply affected by herdrunken father, suffering foryears from anxiety and panicattacks and has only justfinished Counselling. She willbe 15 years old next weekand luckily is now a happy,healthy teenager. Irecommended McKenzieFriends to my friend, whoseson was in the same positionas myself. With their help, healso was granted a ResidenceOrder for his son, again hewould not have been able todo this if he had needed topay large Solicitor bills. Totake this service away fromnormal working people likemyself would be a travestyand would cause anguish andheartache to not onlyparents, but also the childreninvolved. My personal view isthat I would fully supportMcKenzie Friends 100% forthe help they provide topeople and would beextremely upset if this optionwere taken away. I am happyto be contacted at any timeto confirm this.

15 15. I have had an extremelygood service from McKenziefriends especially in myfinancial difficulties andwould recommend for everyfather.

1 1 0 0

16 16. It is untrue that such aban would protect vulnerablelitigants. On the contrary itwill increase the likelihood ofmiscarriages of justice if oneparty is LIP without any helpand the other has a solicitor.

1 1 1 1

19

It will also increase courttime. Legal aid has beenwithdrawn from family courthearings and professionalMcKenzie friends offer avaluable service to litigantswho either cannot afford asolicitor or who find that theyreceive better help from theirMcKenzie friend than from abarrister brought in. This hasbeen the case to myknowledge and such a banwould look like protectionismrather than a genuine desireto protect the public. If aMcKenzie friend who is amember of the SPMF ischosen, any litigant is sure ofdedicated and responsiblehelp. The McKenzie friendwith whom we have haddealings has, to myknowledge, beencomplimented by a districtjudge for his conduct during adifficult hearing and it is a factthat professional McKenziefriends can and do defuseemotionally chargedatmospheres and giveinvaluable guidance. There isno good reason to banprofessional McKenzie friendsand every reason to allowthem to continue helping thevulnerable people thisproposed act purports toprotect.

17 17. The potential removal ofthe option for someone tohave a professional McKenziefriend to assist them in thelegal process is wrong, it isputting justice at risk for

1 1 1 1

20

people who fall outside thelegal aid system or where nolegal aid is available and theirfinancial situation 32 preventsthem from having a solicitor.Surely it is everybody’s rightto represent themselves incourt situation and at least beassisted by someone who issupportive and able to advise.Surely if people cannot afforda solicitor and barred fromusing a professional McKenziefriend then the court processwill be adversely affected byuntrained litigant in personshaving to be guided through alegal process by themagistrates will judge.

18 18. I feel it is wrong toremove this valuable service, Igained far more with theassistance of my McKenziefriend than I did with full legalrepresentation. I really hopecommon sense prevails andthis ban is not brought in.

1 0 1 1

19 19. Please see attached page(below) – detailing theinvaluable assistanceprovided by Ray Barry at aparticularly bleak time in mylife. Thanks to him I am still incontact with my daughter,four years on from hisintervention. He provided anextremely inexpensive serviceand promoted non-confrontational methods ofinteracting with my ex-wife. –Many thanks Ray! Ray Barry,my McKenzie Friend assistedand guided me in 2012towards a solution to a most

1 1 1 1

21

aggravated and emotionallydraining situation arising frommy ex-wife’s announcementthat she and her newhusband were to take one ofmy children to live inNorthern Ireland, thusreducing considerably mychances of contact with mydaughter (then 14 years old).Ray analysed the situationcarefully and suggested apragmatic way forward at thisbleakest point of my life. Acomprehensive ‘ContactArrangement’ was drawn upand duly signed by my ex-wifeand this has stood the test oftime, being complied with tothis day. At the time, therewas no possibility of meemploying the services of asolicitor. I had undergone acostly divorce and had, ittranspired, been poorlyadvised by the solicitor from amajor Crawley firm, (whosename I will divulge if it isconsidered pertinent). A greatdeal of money had beenwasted for little return. Myfunds were extremelydepleted and I would nothave been able to afford toconsult a solicitor at thatjuncture even if I had desiredto do so. At this point, Idiscovered the existence ofMcKenzie Friends, in the formof Ray Barry. Ray explained indetail the legal force andlimitations of any advice andguidance he would provide.He left me in no doubt thathe was not a solicitor. I was

22

extremely impressedthroughout at the speed ofresponse to communicationsexchanged with Ray. Hewould normally respond toqueries on the same day orcertainly within a short timeframe. These 33 exchangeswere often conducted byemail or telephone, with noneed on my part to takeannual leave from work tovisit a solicitor’s office. Ray’sfees were extremely modestand there was no attempt tocharge for every letter sent orphone conversation – asfavoured by the professionalsolicitors. In sharp contrast tothis, he would answer asmany as perhaps ten lengthyand detailed letters for thesame price as I would havepaid for one at the solicitors.He represented exceptionalvalue for money. I guess thatas a result of loweroverheads, the Friends areable to spend more timeanalysing detail and devisingalternative ways of achievinggoals. The whole experiencetook much stress out of theprocess and, as I mentioned,has stood the test of time,with my contact remainingintact with my daughter. Rayalso pointed out variouspoints in my Court Orderwhich had been badly orambiguously worded- orindeed points which I hadsimply overlooked – andenabled me to successfullyclaim back amounts of money

23

due to me. I would add thathe managed to advise mehow to approach my ex-wifein a very non-inflammatorymanner – again in markedcontrast to my solicitor. Infinishing this note, I will addthat there are many peopleout there far poorer than I,who could not even consideremploying solicitors. I wouldplead with you not to deprivesuch people of what turnedout to be a life line for me atsuch a depressing time. Suchpeople will in reality probablyend up representingthemselves in Court fightingtheir case with next to no orat least very limited legalknowledge. I would suggestthat surely the situation atpresent, where they areoffered the assistance of aProfessional McKenzie Friend,well versed in legal matters, isinfinitely preferable to thisbleak and retrogressivealternative.

20 20. Being a full-time working,busy single mum, I found MrBarry’s services very helpful,well explained and affordablein my recent divorce,Financial and as well as inchildren cases. He hasattended court hearing withme and I felt well supportedin these hectic courtproceedings.

1 1 0 0

21 22. I am appalled to read thatthe service I have used andvalue is under threat. I wasadvised by a mediator to

1 0 1 0

24

undertake this service when Iwas at my most vulnerable. Imet with my McKenzie Friendfor support and advice at avery crucial point in my life. Iwas not disappointed.Although my Mc KenzieFriend is not legally trainedhis knowledge and expertisein supporting me through thiscase has been invaluable.Why then would someonewant to ban a service such asthis? My Mc Kenzie Friend iswell versed in matters of thecourt as he has had numerousyears of experience on bothsides of the court process. Healways ensured that thestandards of competence andconduct required by the courtwere adhered to. In addition,he ensured that I was madeaware of these policies andpractices.

22 23. To not have the benefit ofJames Jonklaas’s vastexperience would have meantdisaster for my complex andextended case.

1 0 0 0

23 24. I am grateful to McKenziefriends for the impartialassistance and help receivedand wish to have the freedomto do so if needed again.

1 0 0 0

24 25. I am employed by ThamesValley police for the last 6years, I have used the servicesof a McKenzie friend forassistance in preparing casefile for court, and found theirhelp and support invaluable.

1 0 0 0

25 26. My professional McKenziefriend was incredibly helpfulin my divorce case. Without

1 0 0 0

25

his help I could not haveconducted the case as wellwhich would have lengthenedcourt proceedings and wouldnot have been in my son’sbest interest.

26 29. After incurring a solicitor’sbill of almost £5000 for mydivorce I was unable to fundanother solicitor. Mrs KarenMarshall (McKenzie friend)was completely invaluable innegotiating the minefield ofthe court process when itcame to understanding thedocuments and court processI needed to adhere to. Allforms/documents wereprofessionally completed, Iwas kept up-to-date at alltimes. The support I receivedwas far beyond that of asolicitor. I was never made tofeel stupid or a lesser personif there was anything I didn’tunderstand. Actually beinghonest it was nice to be ableto deal with a human being(albeit very professional)instead of some stuffysolicitor who always seemedmore concerned with lininghis own pocket. I always knewwhat to expect, knew whatwas going to be discussed,never came or went 35 withgreat expectations. MyMcKenzie friend was alwayshonest and upfront. Wealways discussed the courtprocess before we went. Icould ask any questions andwould always be pointed inthe right direction of what Icould and couldn’t do in

1 1 1 1

26

court, what I could orcouldn’t say how to say it. IfMcKenzie friends are nomore, how do people withlittle money, no confidence,vulnerable situations defendthemselves. Without the helpof my McKenzie friend I am inno doubt that I would nothave left and completed thecourt process the way I have.Court is a daunting, sorryplaced for “normal folks.”Anyone in a vulnerablesituation would find thewhole process overwhelming.Without McKenzie friendshow would “normal folks”negotiate everything. Surelythe court processes wouldbecome more lengthy anddrawn out. This would onlycost courts more, clog thesystem up and cause morefrustration for all involved. Ihave been a litigant in personboth with and without aMcKenzie friend. Litigantswithout anyhelp/representation do notunderstand the court processor indeed how to conductthemselves. This can turn thecourtroom into a circus. Ifsomeone is in need of help aMcKenzie friend ticks all theboxes, obviously without themassive cost of a solicitor. Iknow from experience thatmy McKenzie friend MrsKaren Marshall, AbsoluteLegal Services was ofparamount importance in medealing with the situation Ifound myself in. I would have

27

been lost and would have feltin a much more vulnerablestate without her unwaveringsupport. Without legal aidand McKenzie friends thesolicitors can name theirprices too can’t they!!

27 30. I value the help of myMcKenzie friend and afterspending money on solicitorswithout anything to show forit I feel I have made progress.I do not mind paying for thisinvaluable service.

1 1 0 1

28 31. Karen’s help and fantasticservice have been invaluablein helping me to see mydaughter on a regular basisagain. I could not afford topay a solicitor as many peoplecan’t as they are soexpensive.

1 1 0 1

29 32. I am happy to pay for aMcKenzie friend to help mewith any future family court36 proceedings I may have. Ialso want to emphasise howgreat their help has been inthe past and without the helpof a McKenzie friend thecourt may not have come tothe right decision because Iwould not have been able toafford the use of a solicitor,and I was so very well advisedby my McKenzie friend onwhich direction to takethrough my courtproceedings case, and I wouldhave really struggled torepresent myself in court.

1 1 1 1

30 33. I think McKenzie friendsshould be allowed to stay asmine has been a greatsupport within my case and

1 0 1 0

28

as a single parent I wouldn’thave been able to get anyhelp and support as I am fromKaren.

31 34. The service I havereceived from Karen Marshall(McKenzie friend) has beenoutstanding. The help,support and advice I havereceived is totally exceededany money I have paid forservice. I don’t think anybodyputting that much in shouldwork for no financial gain.

1 1 0 0

32 35. I wouldn’t of been able toafford or done it withoutthem.

0 1 0 0

33 37. Robert Smith of Altrurohas provided me with a high-class service and haverecommended him to others.

1 0 0 0

34 38. I write to advise thatwithout the assistance andhelp from Karen, I would nothave been in a position to payfor solicitors in order toproceed with my divorce, dueto the cost involved by them.

0 1 0 1

35 40. They are helpful. Farcheaper than traditionallawyers and many McKenziefriends are doing this out oftheir interest to help people.

1 1 0 1

36 41. Not everyone can afford asolicitor, with the increase ofonline divorce procedureswhich may result in unfairdecisions, it’s extremelyimportant to have thesupport from a solicitor(McKenzie friends) so I feelconfident in a time of stressthat I’m getting theprofessional support to help

1 1 0 1

29

my situation. 3737 43. My McKenzie friend has

been exceptionally helpful inhis support and knowledgeduring my child arrangementand divorce case. I could nototherwise afford help andwould be stuck in an unhappymarriage.

1 1 0 0

38 44. McKenzie friends must beallowed to appear in courtand help families who cannotafford unreasonable feesimposed by lawyers.

0 1 1 1

39 45. As a single mother withlimited income and minimalsupport from my estrangedhusband, I found the help of aMcKenzie friend to be sohelpful. I saved at least twothirds of the fee of what apractising solicitor wouldhave charged me. At least Iknow I won’t have to getanother loan (which I cannotafford) to pay for my divorceproceedings.

1 1 0 1

40 48. I received professionaland friendly service from myMcKenzie friend who helpedme tremendously in court.Their service is very valuableespecially now that legal aid isrestricted and I was noteligible for legal aid.

1 1 0 0

41 49. Without the support ofmy McKenzie friend I wouldnot have gained joint care ofmy two children.

1 0 0 0

42 50. The service provided byMcKenzie friends isinvaluable. John has beenvery key in getting more timewith my son. My barrister’s

1 0 1 0

30

comment was “this is one ofthe best statements I haveever seen.” What they dothey is needed and should beavailable to anyone whoneeds them.

43 51. I’m pretty shocked anddisgusted that this wouldeven be considered. Morelight needs to be shone onthe family court. McKenziefriends and should beencouraged wheneverpossible.

1 0 1 0

44 53. It is outrageous thatsolicitors are allowed tocharge more per hour thanthe British Prime Ministerreceives. And then theyrefuse to act for you in court.McKenzie Friend was the onlyway I was able to completemy divorce procedure at areasonable and realistic cost.38

1 1 0 1

45 56. I started my divorceprocess in 2013. The solicitor Imet was really nice andassuring. He promised a quickprocess. Unfortunately due tomy ignorance in the familylaw area I had no choice buttrust him. Two years andabout £3000 later! realisedhow incompetent he was. Mydivorce reached the DecreeNisi stage. Nothing else wasdone. I decided to change thelaw firm. In April 2015 mynew lawyer was really niceand assuring. She promised aquick process. I had no choicebut trust her. My ex-husbanddecided to take me to court. Icouldn't afford a lawyer to

1 1 1 1

31

represent me in the childcarematters and my friendmentioned a McKenzieFriend. I contacted NicholasWalton-Jones. We havealready been through fourhearings. I wish someone hadmentioned him to me before Ilost all my money on thelawyers who didn't progressmy divorce at all. I amrepresenting myself but withNik's help I actuallyunderstand the process now.I feel I have a professionaladvisor who doesn't lead meand has always been veryclear on what I should orshouldn't expect. He is notbiased or doesn't tell mewhat to do but hisexplanations give a greatunderstanding on mysituation. Nik doesn't makepromises- he clarifies theprocess, prepares andsupports. When we go tohearings, Nik makes me feelreally comfortable andconfident. I also feel I have afriend who distracts me andmakes me less stressed. Nik'sfees are very low. He isflexible with the paymentsdates, which makes itpossible to have professionaland affordable help withoutworrying about charges. Mychildcare matters are beingsorted thank to my McKenziefriend! A year and £2000 latermy finances are still wherethey were over two and halfyear ago. I already contactedmy current solicitor to tell

32

them L wish for them to stopdealing with my financesmatters. I have been waitingfor the detailed breakdownand the final invoice for overa month. I am taking myfinance matters to Nik. I knowI will be finally divorced thisyear! If you ban McKenziefriends from charging fortheir services, you will loseexcellent professionals. Theyinvested a lot of time andmoney in their qualifications.They could charge far morefor their excellence and yetthose minimal fees are allthey get. Comparing to thelawyers' fees, they alreadyseem to be doing almost acharity work. Comparing tothe lawyers' quality ofservice... There is nocomparison as they actuallyhelp. If we start losingMcKenzie friends (which iswhat is probable to happenwith their charges 39 beingbanned), a lot of people willbe disadvantaged becausethey won't be able to affordsolicitors. I know I could havebeen one of them...

46 57. The practical andemotional support I havereceived from my McKenziefriend has been invaluable tomy case regarding access tomy children. The legal processregarding family court is aminefield and to have tonegotiate this minefieldduring such an emotionaltime wo uld have been almostimpossible. There is no doubt

1 1 1 1

33

that I would have not beenable to comm ence orcontinue with proceedingswithout the professional helpof a McKenzie friend. Theiremotional support has alsobeen invaluable and given methe strength to continue withmy ca se and fight to getjustice and the best for mychildren. There is no way Iwould have been ab le tocontinue without a McKenziefriend and I am so pleasedthat I have their support. Iapproached a solicitor in thehope that they could help mebut even on my average wagethe re was no way I couldafford their services. At thistime I was in despair until Idiscovered th e services of aMcKenzie friend and theyhave given me the hope that Ineed. If a McKenzie Friendwas not available I could notafford a barrister or solicitor.

47 58. Myself and friends haveused Mckenzie friend’s in thepast as we were unable toafford Solicitor fees, and theyhave been instrumental inhelping receive justice incourt when witho ut themcases have been lost andjustice not served. This is ainvaluable service that shouldcontinue as it has in the past.In my own case Helen Maltby,my Mckenie friend has beenther e to hold my handthrough a very trying time,without her help I would nothave known wher e to start,not understood court

1 1 1 1

34

procedures and understandhow whole procedure works.Countless hours were spentpreparing my case, somethingthat I could have not done bymyse lf. She made sure thathow I approached everythingwas within the law and that Iunderstood what I could andcouldn’t do…I would neverhave gotten through theprocess without my Mckenzie friend.

48 59. My McKenzie friendplayed such a big part in mycase, both inside and outsidethe court, without there helpit would have beenimpossible for me to be ableto fund going to court to getaccess for my son. I hope notto so, but If I end up goingback to court it is withoutquesti 40 on I would berelying on my McKenziefriend to provide the help Ineed and is without a dou bta service that I couldn’t gowithout.

1 1 1 0

49 60.Without the support ofMcKenzie Friends therewould have been a number ofoccasions I would have had torepresent myself in the familycourt and would have notunderstood the le gal termsand implications of actionsthat have occurred in mydaughters case that has beenes calated to her now havingto been made part of theproceedings with a child’sGuardian and h er ownsolicitor.

1 0 0 0

35

50 61.Working with a McKenziefriend enabled me tocontinue with my casewithout the financi al stress Iwould have had if I hadcontinued to use a solicitor. Inmy particular case I had to take swift action to protect myson and hadn’t heard of aMcKenzie friend at this point.The fe e through a solicitorfor taking this action and onecourt appearance was £1000.Money I had to put on mycredit card, and as yet havenot been able to pay off.Because of the financial pressures I was consideringrepresenting myself but felttotally unskilled, but felt I hadno other option. It was myMum who found out aboutMcKenzie friends on theinternet. I went onto c ontactHelen Maltby, in Sheffield,who provided and excellentprofessional service that wasa ffordable. I was able tomeet the cost much morecomfortably within mymonthly budget and wasoffered the opportunity tospread the cost over a longerperiod if needed. Althoughmy c ase was closed over 6months ago I have sincecontacted my McKenzie ontwo occasions reg ardingorganising contact betweenmy son and his dad. Advicethat has been invaluable, buta dvice I would not have sortif I had had to use a solicitorand pay their fees. On apersonal not e working with a

1 1 0 1

36

McKenzie friend was muchless intimidating than workingwith a solicitor. She was ableto come to my house, talk onthe phone and also met me ashort distance away f rom thecourt so we could walk to thecourt together, whichsupported me immensely. Ican’t talk highly enough of myexperience of working with aMcKenzie friend, and haverecommended the service tomany people. I felt happy topay for the professionalservice I received, as the feewas a manageable amountthat I could meet. I was verygrateful to be able to makethe choice of using aMcKenzie friend.

51 62. The help and advise Ireceived from McKenzieFriend was very professionaland valuable and I cannotfault the service provided. 41

1 0 0 0

52 63. I recently used aMcKenzie Friend following mydivorce, this was anunbelievably stressful andexpensive time for me andthe help and support I wasgiven by my McKenzie Friendwas second to none. Istrongly believe they shouldbe available to help people ina variety of situations, and Ido not know what I wouldhave done had I not had theirhelp. The legal system is bothconfusing, and I must say inmy case, not helpful at all. If Ihad known about McKenzieFriends at the start of myordeal then I wonder if I

1 0 1 0

37

would have gone to court atall, therefore another goodreason to have their expertiseand help. I can notrecommend them stronglyenough.

53 64. McKenzie Friend helped inmy case as she explained tome things which I was unableto understand, after my legalaid stopped and I couldn’tafford to pay a solicitor as thefees was too high for me,McKenzie Friend helped me inwriting my statement andsupport me at court which Iwould have found it difficultwithout McKenzie Friend , Ithink its useful idea and I didappreciate that there isanother way to help me atcourt and which is affordableto me .

1 1 0 0

54 65. Without my mckenziefriend I would not have beenable to afford a solicitor. Theyhelped me gain more timewith my daughter which atpresent is nice but eventuallyI want to gain more contactand so I will be in need if mymckenzie again. Without legalaid avaliable it costs lots to gothrough family courts.

1 1 0 1

55 66. During a difficultseparation (including divorce,obtaining an occupation andnon molestation order andChildren Act proceedings),Helen Maltby helped me withmany court appearances andthe preparation of courtdocuments andcorrespondence in 2014 and2015. She was courteous, well

1 1 1 1

38

informed and professional atall times. I could not affordthe rates charged by astandard solicitor or barristerand it was a huge relief to meto know that help was outthere at a reduced fee, butstill with a knowledgeableand capable person. Staff atSheffield Domestic AbuseOutreach Servicerecommended Helen initiallyand from the outset I couldtell that she was experiencedand well placed to help me ata very challenging time in mylife. I am sure that her workand that of her colleagues isof the utmost importance inassisting the poorestmembers of society with legalmatters. Without such helpthe court process would seemmore baffling and the wholeexperience would 42probably be almostunbearably stressful for manypeople.

56 67. I have found McKenzieFriends professional, friendlyand most of all affordable.They provided me with aprompt and outstandingservice in both of my cases –children & financial. They areapproachable, understandingand reliable individuals whooffer the solution for thosewho need it and not alwayscan afford it.

1 1 0 0

57 68. Without the help of aMcKenzie friend, I would havehad to face an acrimoniousdivorce alone and as I couldnot afford a solicitor’s fee, my

1 1 0 1

39

McKenzie friend was valuableand helpful beyond what canbe measured in monetaryterms. I had no problempaying for their help. It was avaluable service.

58 69. My divorce case hadstalled in the legal system andI had paid lawyers asubstantial amount in fees. Icontacted a McKenzie Friendwho supported me andoffered clear and constructiveadvice throughout mydealings with him. I can onlysay that the Lord Chief Justiceis incorrect in his opinion. Myexperience is quite theopposite, in that myMcKenzie Friend actuallyfacilitated the properadministration of justice,whilst providing effectiveprotection to me as a litigantwho really felt that I had littleto no effective protection, ormeans of redress, by'regulated legal teams.' Thecompetency of my McKenzieFriend was second to noneand he assisted me inobtaining an outcome I couldnot have expected from myprevious 'legal teams'. Theoption for an individual tochoose McKenzie Friendsshould not be removed.

1 0 1 1

59 71. I personally receivedmuch of help from McKenziefriends and I do reallyappreciate the hard works Ireceived.

1 0 0 0

60 72. Our family had spent aconsiderable amount ofmoney on solicitors who had

1 0 1 1

40

got us nowhere.The McKenziefriends from cou rtw ithoutalawyer were absolutelybrilliant and it is withoutdoubt that without them ourson would have lost anycontact with his daughter andus with our grand daughter.To consider banning themwould do a considerableinjustice to all 43 involved insuch cases.

61 74. Going through divorce isan extremely traumatic,worrying and stressfulexperience. One of the mostconcerning aspects about thewhole process is about beingable to afford all of theassociated costs, especiallyfor someone like me whoearns less than the nationalaverage, has to pay childmaintenance to my children'smother all while having tomove back home with myown Mum because I can'tfinancially afford a place ofmy own. The one constant Ihave throughout this awfultime of my life; the onereassuring person whom I canrely on completely is myMcKenzie Friend, AshliePrescott. Even though I've stillhad to initially borrow themoney from my Mum to payfor Ashliets expert andvaluefor-money services,Ashlie has provided me withaffordable, expert advicewhich I couldn't haveobtained via a practisingsolicitor due to theirextortionate costs. I had

1 1 1 1

41

contacted various FamilyDivorce Solicitors in the Hullarea prior to meeting Ashlie. Icouldn't quite believe justhow much their costs were,and when speaking to acouple of them over thephone it immediatelyappeared to me that theywere more concerned withthe money side of things andless concerned about myemotional and financialwelfare. With Ashlie this hasbeen the complete opposite.The fact that she is providingme with the same level ofadvice and professionalism Iwould expect from the legalservices, but for a fraction ofthe cost is of extremecomfort to me. As a humanbeing I much happier dealingwith someone who is moreconcerned about me thantheir own financial gain - thisis how everybody shouldoperate in my view. There istoo much emphasis on profitin today's world. Making largesums of money out of peoplewhile they're going throughwhat is deemed to be thesecond most depressing timeof anyone's life behind abereavement, is quite franklyabsurd. It is my view thatrather than consider banninggood-hearted people likeAshlie and the wider networkof McKenzie Friends fromassisting ordinary people likeme, you should in fact bereviewing the entire legalsystem from the perspective

42

of reducing the amount ofprofit legal companies arepermitted to make fromsituations like divorce. 44Therefore, it will come as nosurprise to you when I saythat I wholeheartedly opposeyour proposal and urge you toreconsider.

62 75. If I had not been able touse the services of AshliePrescott my life and my son'slife would have such adifferent outcome. My ex-husband was extremelycontrolling over myself andmy ten year old son due tohim having severe mentalhealth problerns. I had to useAshlie's services to fight toamend the contact that myex-husband had. Since goingto court and using Ashlie'sservices, my son hadflourished at school, hasstopped complaining of stressrelated symptoms and is ableto manage his controllingfather much better now as hedoes not see him as often.Without being able to accessthis service I would not havebeen able to pay solicitorscosts. I feel a withdrawal ofthis service would bedangerous and would affectthe mental health of a lot ofpeople, especially children. Ashuman's we should have thechoice to choose what servicewe want to pay for. If thereare Mckenzie friends who areunethical and not giving goodadvice then focus on thesepeople rather than banishing

1 1 1 1

43

the qualified caring peoplelike Ashlie.

63 80. This concern wasinvaluable to me at a timethat I needed professionalhelp and didn’t know whereto turn. They gave me aprofessional, competent andcaring service.

1 0 0 0

64 81. Without Ashley Prescottservice I would be unable toaccess affordable legal advice.As an adult I welcome havinga choice of either try andmuddle through on my ownor use this service.

1 0 1 1

65 82. I do not qualify for legalaid. Without the support ofmy professional McKenziefriend, whom I pay for, Iwould not have been able toafford “full” solicitors feesand therefore could not havebeen confident in securing mydaughters and my ownfinancial security during mydivorce.

0 1 0 1

66 83. I found the service Ireceived from Ashley to be agreat help to me at a timewhen I needed professionaladvice and could not afford topay a solicitor’s fees. 45

1 1 0 1

67 84. The service has beeninvaluable to me as I wouldhave struggled greatly to beable to afford the cost ofinstructing a solicitor. I havebeen very happy with the waythe work has beenundertaken.

1 1 0 1

68 85. The professional help andadvice I received from AshleyPrescott as a McKenzie friend

1 0 0 0

44

was invaluable and withoutthe option to use aprofessional as a McKenziefriend, I would have had nomeans to proceed with mydivorce.

69 86. Karen has helped meimmeasurably with support interms of both my divorce, andthe finance and familymatters associated, help Icould not have affordedotherwise, and a service thatis second to none in terms ofits value.

1 1 0 0

70 87. The help and support Ihave received has been sobeneficial to myself and myfamily. If it wasn’t for thisservice I could not and wouldnot have moved forward withas little stress as I have done.

1 0 0 0

71 88. I have found it morepersonal and not soharrowing dealing with aMcKenzie friend rather thanan impersonal service from asolicitor. Also I received thesame service but at anaffordable cost.

1 1 0 1

72 90. I have received invaluablehelp and advice from KarenMarshall. Help and advicewhich I may not have beenable to afford from a clock-ticking, cost rising solicitor. Iwould certainly use Karen oranother member of thesociety of professionalMcKenzie friends again.

1 1 0 1

73 91. I have found the helpgiven to me invaluable andmy McKenzie friend hassupported me whenever I

1 0 1 0

45

have contacted her. It shouldbe a choice for me to makewho I wish to get advice from.

74 92. Without such dedicatedprofessionals I don’t knowhow I could have affordedthis. I have been in thisposition before and wentdown the solicitors route andfound this very expensive andwith very little effort to givento me to justify the fee theycharged at the time. 46

0 1 0 1

75 93. Karen’s help wasinvaluable. I was a victim ofdomestic abuse and hademployed a solicitor butcould not keep up with thefees they were requiring toprotect both me and my son. Iam currently going throughthe financial settlement anddivorce. Without doubt Iwouldn’t be able to do thiswithout Karen’s help andguidance.

1 1 0 1

46

Appendix 3

17 responses which refer to the MF being in some way better (as opposed to just cheaper) thansolicitor or barrister

1/ “He (MF) also responded quickly when situations arose which a typical solicitor would

have taken much longer to address. The cost of a solicitor would have been prohibitive, I

would not have been able to bring my case to court, and most likely my daughter would have

had to grow up with no contact with her father.

3/ I had previously used up savings for a solicitor who achieved nothing and was left

disillusioned and heart broken when there was no money left. At the last minute I was

informed about McKenzie Friends who immediately came to my aid. Their costs were

extremely low in comparison to usual solicitor’s fees... I for one will always be grateful for

their support, expertise and wonderful service.

6/ “My case led to a shared residence order put in place. Following the recommended route

of solicitors/barristers would have left me penniless and broken. You want to deny this

lifeline to others!! Shame.”

8/ “ I spent 6 years in court to gain my rightful contact with my daughter who is now 8 years

old. The first 2 years I used solicitors and barristers with limited success of contact but a huge

bill. The last 4 years of court I used a McKenzie friend. Not only did we achieve a contact

order until my child becomes 16 years old, but the cost involved was a fraction of the money I

had spent in the first two years. I cannot thank my McKenzie friend enough for what he did

for me. I will never forget him.”

16/ Legal aid has been withdrawn from family court hearings and professional McKenzie

friends offer a valuable service to litigants who either cannot afford a solicitor or who find

that they receive better help from their McKenzie friend than from a barrister brought in.

18/ “I gained far more with the assistance of my McKenzie friend than I did with full legal

representation.”

47

19/ “ Thanks to him (my McKenzie Friend) I am still in contact with my daughter, four years

on from his intervention. He provided an extremely inexpensive service and promoted non-

confrontational methods of interacting with my ex-wife....in marked contrast to my solicitor.”

29/ “After incurring a solicitor’s bill of almost £5000 for my divorce I was unable to fund

another solicitor.... My McKenzie friend was completely invaluable in negotiating the

minefield of the court process... The support I received was far beyond that of a solicitor.....it

was nice to be able to deal with a human being (albeit very professional) instead of some

stuffy solicitor..”

30/ “I value the help of my McKenzie friend and after spending money on solicitors without

anything to show for it I feel I have made progress.

45/ “I found the help of a Mckenzie Friend to be so helpful. I saved at least two thirds of the

fee of what a practising solicitor would have charged me. At least I know I won’t have to get

another loan (which I cannot afford) to pay for my divorce proceedings.”

56/ The solicitor I met was really nice and assuring. He promised a quick process.

Unfortunately due to my ignorance in the family law area I had no choice but trust him. Two

years and about £3000 later I realised how incompetent he was. .. My friend mentioned a

McKenzie Friend. I wish someone had mentioned him to me before... He makes me feel really

comfortable and confident. I also feel I have a friend who distracts me and makes me less

stressed. His fees are very low. My childcare matters are being sorted thank to my McKenzie

friend!

61/ working with a McKenzie friend was much less intimidating than working with a solicitor.

She was able to come to my house, talk on the phone and also met me a short distance away

from the court so we could walk to the court together, which supported me immensely

72. Our family had spent a considerable amount of money on solicitors who had got us

nowhere. The McKenzie friends were absolutely brilliant and it is without doubt that without

48

them our son would have lost any contact with his daughter and us with our grand daughter.

To consider banning them would do a considerable injustice to all involved in such cases.

74/ I had contacted various Family Divorce Solicitors prior to meeting my Mckenzie Friend. I

couldn't quite believe just how much their costs were, and when speaking to a couple of

them over the phone it immediately appeared to me that they were more concerned with the

money side of things and less concerned about my emotional and financial welfare. With my

Mckenzie Friend this has been the complete opposite. ...It is my view that rather than

consider banning good-hearted people like my McKenzie Friend and the wider network of

McKenzie Friends from assisting ordinary people like me, you should in fact be reviewing the

entire legal system from the perspective of reducing the amount of profit legal companies

are permitted to make from situations like divorce.

88. I have found it more personal and not so harrowing dealing with a McKenzie friend rather

than an impersonal service from a solicitor. Also I received the same service but at an

affordable cost.

90. I have received invaluable help and advice from my McKenzie Friend. Help and advice

which I may not have been able to afford from a clock-ticking, cost rising solicitor. I would

certainly use her or another member of the society of professional McKenzie friends again.

92. Without such dedicated professionals I don’t know how I could have afforded this. I have

been in this position before and went down the solicitors route and found this very expensive

and with very little effort to given to me to justify the fee they charged at the time.

49

ANNEX 2 CARDIFF UNIVERSITY STUDY

A study of McKenzie Friends in family law cases

About the researchWe are researchers carrying out a study to find out about professional McKenzie Friendsand the role that they play in supporting litigants in person through family law cases.

To find out more about McKenzie Friends and the work they do, we will be conductinginterviews with professional McKenzie Friends and with litigants who have used them. Ina later phase of the study, we will also be observing a number of court hearings attendedby professional McKenzie Friends and speaking to the people involved about theirexperiences.

We would very much like to interview you as part of our research and we have preparedthis leaflet to give you some information about it.

Who is in charge of the study?This research study is led by Dr Leanne Smith from Cardiff University. The otherresearchers are Dr Emma Hitchings from Bristol University and the research assistant,Mark Sefton. Each of us has many years of experience of research on separating families’experiences of the legal system.

The research is funded by the Bar Council. However, the research team is independent ofthe Bar Council and will be free to publish their findings whether or not the Bar Councilagrees with them.

The study has been approved by the Cardiff University Research Ethics Committee.

Why are we doing this research?There are suggestions that, since substantial restrictions on the availability of legal aidwere introduced in 2013, more litigants are using professional McKenzie Friends to helpthem with their family law cases. McKenzie Friends are increasingly in the spotlight – forexample, senior judiciary have recently published proposals for new rules covering whatfee-charging McKenzie Friends in particular, but also McKenzie Friends more generally,should and should not be able to do. We want to learn more about what professionalMcKenzie Friends do and what difference their support makes to people who do not havea lawyer to help them throughout their family law case. The research will help us to makesuggestions about the use of McKenzie Friends.

The results of the research will be published in a report, which will be available online, andin specialist academic journals. We can send you a copy of the support if you wish.

50

How you can help usFor this research to be useful we need to find out as much as we can about professionalMcKenzie Friends and the assistance they provide to their clients both inside and outsideof the family courts.

We would like to conduct an interview with you to find out about your experiences of beingor using a professional McKenzie Friend.

Participation in an interview is entirely voluntary.

What will the interview involve?A researcher will arrange to visit you at a mutually convenient time and place and ask youquestions about your work as a McKenzie Friend. The interview will last around one hourand the format will allow you to answer questions in your own words. With your consent,we would like to audio record the interview – this makes it much easier for the interviewerto listen to what you are saying.

If you do take part you can refuse to answer any questions which make you uncomfortableand you can change your mind about taking part in the study at any point - just tell theresearcher that you no longer wish to take part and we will withdraw you from the study.

ConfidentialityIf you choose to participate in the research your views may be used in the research reportbut your identity will remain strictly confidential. The researcher will not record any namesor addresses in their notes and if you agree to an audio recording of your interview, wewill make sure that no names or identifying details will be transcribed. Nobody from outsidethe research team will be able to identify you from any comments you make. Neither younor any court case you are involved in will be identified in the research report.

Any questions or worries?If you would like more information about the research, please contact Leanne Smith whois leading the research study:

Dr Leanne SmithSchool of Law and politicsMuseum AvenueCardiff CF10 3AX

51

School of Law and politicsLaw BuildingCardiff UniversityMuseum AvenueCardiffCF10 3AX

Court Without a LawyerCommunity Interest Company11 Windsor GardensCastlecroftWolverhampton WV3 8LY

27th May 2016

Dear Mr Barry,

I am writing in response to the concerns you raised about the ethical integrity, specifically theimpartiality, of the research project I am leading to explore the work of McKenzie Friends in familycases.

I would like to reassure you that I and the other members of the research team take very seriouslythe need to conduct research and analyse findings objectively. I understand your concern in relationto the funding for the research being provided by the Bar Council, which has – as you note –expressed some strong views about regulation of the work of McKenzie Friends. It was an issue that Iand the research team considered carefully before taking on the project and I took steps to ensurethat the independence of the research team and the impartiality of the research report would beprotected. In particular, I stressed that the research findings might not support the Bar Council’sposition on McKenzie Friends. The Bar Council does acknowledge and support the need forindependence in relation to this research and has agreed that the research team will be able topublish the results of the research with or without their support. I have now amended our projectinformation sheet (see attached document) to clarify our independence from the Bar Council.

As researchers, we are first and foremost concerned that policy decisions should be informed byevidence as far as possible and our aim in undertaking this research is to build a stronger evidencebase from which decisions about McKenzie Friends may be taken. The mixed view we obtained fromthe ‘Litigants in person in private family law cases’ study that you mentioned in your letter is one ofthe reasons that we are convinced of the need for this research; there is not enough evidence atpresent to support strong views either against or in support of further regulation of the work ofMcKenzie Friends. Incidentally, I am sure you noted that we did comment on the extremely highquality of the work done by one of the McKenzie Friends we observed in that study, in addition toreporting our concerns about the others.

I cannot predict the results of this study, but it is entirely possible that we will find sufficientexamples of positive practice to question the recent proposals from the judiciary. In connection withour desire to build a fuller picture of the work of McKenzie Friends, may I draw your attention to ourplans to interview clients, which is something that the LSCP did not do. You have mentioned that

52

many clients are very satisfied with the work of McKenzie Friends and if you would like to assist us inobtaining the views of clients by advertising the project, that would be very helpful.

You do not, of course, have to participate in this research. However, it would be a shame not to beable to include your views. It is important that the study reflects the views of as diverse a range ofMcKenzie Friends as possible. Your views as a member of the new self-regulating body for McKenzieFriends are of interest to us, particularly as that body did not exist when earlier research on thistopic was conducted. We also think it likely that the market has developed further in other waysduring the last two or three years and you are likely to have good insight into this.

If you still have concerns, I would be grateful for an opportunity to discuss them with you.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Leanne Smith

531

To:

Dr Leanne Smith, by email to

1) Prof John Harrington, Director of Research, Chair, School Ethics Committee, School ofLaw and Politics, Cardiff University.

2) Prof. Colin Riordan, Vice Chancellor, Cardiff University: by email

3rd June 2016

Dear Dr Smith,

Thank you for your letter of 27 May. We appreciate you looking into this and the courtesy ofyour reply. In particular we welcome your assurance that “..the research team will be free topublish their findings whether or not the Bar Council agrees with them.” However, that is notthe essential nature of our concern. Rather, it is that the Bar Council has commissioned 3researchers whose involvement with the 2014 MOJ study indicates a likely bias againstProfessional McKenzie Friends, leading to a likely skew of the findings in the Bar’s favour.

You rightly say that your previous research commented on the extremely high quality of thework done by one of the 3 McKenzie Friends in that sample. However, your blanketrecommendation: “it is doubtful whether… paid MF’s… justify a charge for their services.”(P112) still damned that MF along with all the rest. Are we not right to fear that your currentstudy may again support a blanket ban, regardless of whatever positives you may observe?

In respect of the other 2 cases in that sample, there is insufficient information to comment onone, but the other suggests a lack of understanding and a bias on the part of the researchers:

P97 “ In B034, a children case, the resident mother had unwittingly recently employed a paidMF linked to a father’s rights group. She appeared to have considerably weakened her caseby agreeing, presumably on his advice, to a shared residence order for a very young childdespite having previously been opposed to unsupervised contact.”

1) If the researcher knew the MF was linked to a father’s group, surely the mother musthave known also? If so, the term “unwittingly” suggests the researcher’s disapprovalof the mother’s choice, rather than the mother being tricked in some way by the MF.

542

2) “Shared residence” is simply a type of order, and is no indication of the amount oftime the child shall spend with each parent. The researchers either did not know this,or were deliberately misleading the reader, implying contact went from zero to 50%.

3) Anyone who works in this field knows it is common, in the early stages of childrenproceedings, for a resident mother to oppose unsupervised contact, and later withdrawher objection on receiving legal advice. An experienced solicitor, barrister or MFwould advise a mother to withdraw any such objection at an early stage unless it iswell founded; otherwise, if her concerns are subsequently found to have beenexaggerated, a court might question whether she is acting in the child’s best interests.The researchers showed no understanding of this pattern and instead attribute theMcKenzie Friend’s advice to his being a “covert foe” (page 112), undermining hisclient’s case in order to pursue his own agenda. The views of the mother, who was“very positive about the MF’s efforts” (P112) were dismissed out of hand: “..onecannot expect lay consumers to always know what they need to know. ..” (P112)

A qualitative methodology carries the potential for researchers to introduce their own agendasand prejudices, and pass them off as research findings. There appears to be an element of thatin the 2014 study, and it would seem that is the very reason why the Bar Council has nowchosen 3 researchers from that study, in the hope that the same prejudices and agendas willsurface on this occasion too. Frankly, we are concerned that the views and experiences of ourown clients may be treated in the same dismissive, patronising way in your current project.

Having said that, we take the view that it is better to participate in this project than not to doso. Individual SPMF members will decide for themselves whether to take part. For myself, Iintend to.

You ask “… if you would like to assist us in obtaining the views of clients by advertising theproject, that would be very helpful.” Attached to our response to the current McKenzie Friendconsultation were signed statements from 93 people who had used the services of one of ourmembers. We would be willing to forward a letter from you to each, inviting theirparticipation.

Yours sincerely,

Ray BarryChair, Society of Professional Mckenzie Friends

55

ANNEX 3 CLAIMS MANAGEMENT REGULATOR

Registered Office: 11 Windsor Gardens, Wolverhampton. WV3 8LY

Claims management Regulator (by email to contactus@claimsregulation.gov.uk )Claims Management Regulation UnitCompliance Office57-60 High StreetBurton- upon-TrentStaffordshireDE14 1JS

29th June 2016

Dear Sirs

We are a Trade Association of Professional McKenzie Friends.

We have, until now, advised our members not to assist at employment tribunals or otherwiseprovide employment legal services unless regulated to do so. We base that advice on CompensationAct 2006 part 2, and Compensation (Claims Management Regulation Services) Order 2006 section 2.

This advice seems to be contradicted by research published this month by the Legal Services Board:https://research.legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/media/Unregulated-providers-research-summary.pdf

Line 5 of the table on page 2 of that document indicates that 4 – 5% of employment legal servicesare currently delivered by unregulated providers, including fee charging McKenzie Friends.

On the face of it, our members are complying with the law while others are not. Have wemisinterpreted the Compensation Act and Order in some way? Can our members lawfully provideemployment legal services, outside of your regulation?

Yours sincerely,

Raymond BarryChair, Society of Professional McKenzie Friends. www.mckenziefriends.directory/

ANNEX 3 CLAIMS MANAGEMENT REGULATOR

Registered Office: 11 Windsor Gardens, Wolverhampton. WV3 8LY

Ms M Finnie, Head of ServiceClaims Management Regulation Unit57-60 High StreetBurton- upon-TrentStaffordshireDE14 1JS

Ref: AT/370443/JS7th July 2016

Dear Ms. Finnie,

I wrote to your office on 29/06/16 after reading a recent research paper published by the LegalServices Board, which indicated that 4 – 5% of employment legal services are currently delivered byunregulated providers, including fee charging McKenzie Friends. These providers appear to beoperating without authorisation, and doing so quite openly, to the frustration of our members, someof whom would choose to provide unregulated employment services if it were allowed.

I have since spoken to Jackie Plant at your office, and exchanged emails with Jade Squirrel. Bothhave been most helpful. Jackie has passed the information through to the Unauthorised Team, butadvised me that team would not normally give feedback to the informant.

The LSB research has uncovered a significant volume of unauthorised provision. In view of this Iwould ask that this be escalated to whoever does have the necessary authority to keep us informed.Our members are entitled to know what steps the regulator is now taking to put this right.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Raymond BarryChair, Society of Professional McKenzie Friends. www.mckenziefriends.directory/