Musings and Snippets from a recently retired JP. I served for 31 years, mostly in west London. I was Chairman of my Bench for some years, and a member of the National Bench Chairmen's Forum All cases are based on real ones, but anonymised and composited. All opinions are those of one or more individuals. JPs swear to enforce the law of the land, whether or not they approve of it. Nothing on here constitutes legal advice.
Friday, February 26, 2016
It's McKenzie Again
The powers-that-be have decided to have a look at McKenzie Friends.
Funny, that. You would almost think that someone Up There reads this blog.
According to the Law Gazette (www.lawgazette.co.uk):
'The […] consultation recommends that any McKenzie friend must be “neither directly not indirectly in receipt of remuneration.” This is to exclude not just fee-charging McKenzie friends but any salaried advice worker with CAB or other agency.’
'This tells the consumer that they must either pay whatever charges solicitors and barristers require of them or receive no legal help at all – no alternative is permitted'.
As a layman this appears to affect the most underprivileged and those with a meagre income.
Whereas, the underprivileged and meagre income people could make do with unqualified but cheap legal advising, while those who can afford it could still buy the right to be represented by professionals who stake their reputation and their livelihood on every case they take?Is 'You get what you pay for' the new standard for justice?
But it does not appear to say that if a solicitor or a barrister are acting in the capacity of a McKenzie friend, they have to charge their usual fee. They could do it for one penny if they wished, and then all would be satisfied.
Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.
According to the Law Gazette (www.lawgazette.co.uk):
ReplyDelete'The […] consultation recommends that any McKenzie friend must be “neither directly not indirectly in receipt of remuneration.” This is to exclude not just fee-charging McKenzie friends but any salaried advice worker with CAB or other agency.’
'This tells the consumer that they must either pay whatever charges solicitors and barristers require of them or receive no legal help at all – no alternative is permitted'.
As a layman this appears to affect the most underprivileged and those with a meagre income.
Whereas, the underprivileged and meagre income people could make do with unqualified but cheap legal advising, while those who can afford it could still buy the right to be represented by professionals who stake their reputation and their livelihood on every case they take?Is 'You get what you pay for' the new standard for justice?
DeleteYes. Always has been. See the references to the Ritz being open to all in previous comments.
DeleteBut it does not appear to say that if a solicitor or a barrister are acting in the capacity of a McKenzie friend, they have to charge their usual fee. They could do it for one penny if they wished, and then all would be satisfied.
ReplyDeleteThey won't. Nor should they be expected to.
Delete