SRA response

• 1.

  The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is the regulator of solicitors and law firms in England and Wales, protecting consumers and supporting the rule of law and the administration of justice. The SRA does this by overseeing all education and training requirements necessary to practise as a solicitor, licensing individuals and firms to practise, setting the standards of the profession and regulating and enforcing compliance against these standards.

• 2.

  In deciding how we regulate we pay regard to the regulatory objectives outlined in the Legal Services Act.

• 3.

  We are writing in response to the consultation published by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales on reforming the courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends. Whilst we do not regulate McKenzie Friends, our regulatory objectives mean we have an interest in a legal services market which promotes access to justice, protects consumers and is competitive.

Responses to consultation questions

• 4.

  We agree. We welcome proposals to clarify the term “McKenzie Friend” so that the remit of the role is clear, simple and readily understandable by all court users.

• 5.

  We agree the term "court supporter" is clearer than McKenzie friend. We agree that term "lay" may not be well understood by litigants in person. We also agree that "supporter" communicates the core function of the McKenzie friend to support the litigant in person, who is representing themselves and has responsibility for controlling the conduct of their own litigation.

• 6.

  We agree. Replacing Practice Guidance with rules of court provides greater certainty, is more transparent and provides for proper judicial, executive and parliamentary oversight.

• 7.

  We welcome the suggestion that a plain language guide be written for litigants in person and McKenzie friends. In addition, we would suggest that thought be given to drafting the rules themselves in plain English, and in a way that either avoids technical terms (e.g. Civil Restraint Order, Statement of Truth) or explains them through a footnote within the text (instead of in the glossary or elsewhere in the rules), so that a litigant in person can understand them easily. It would also be helpful to litigants include an explanation of what "good reason" or "exceptional circumstances" mean in the rules themselves, so that all relevant information is conveniently provided in one place.

• 8.

  A miscarriage of justice in family proceedings is more likely to be incapable of remedy through financial redress. This makes a stronger case for some access to support for an impecunious litigant in person.

• 9.

  We are not in favour of making the process for appointment of McKenzie friends unduly bureaucratic or complicated. However, provided simple guidance can be given to litigants in person and prospective McKenzie friends about how to complete the notice, and provided courts have a discretion to grant permission for a McKenzie friend to exercise rights of advocacy or litigation even when no notice has been filed, we can see that this requirement could enable litigation to be conducted more efficiently by ensuring that relevant information is provided in a timely fashion.

• 10.

  We can also see advantages with a Code of Conduct for McKenzie friends, making clear their role and obligations, breach of which would make it easier for the court to make appropriate orders refusing to permit an individual to act, or continue to act as a McKenzie friend.

• 11.

  We welcome proposals to increase information available for litigants in person and McKenzie Friends through a plain language guide. We agree that this should include guidance on what McKenzie Friends can and cannot do, the right to receive reasonable assistance and the court’s approach to granting rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation.

• 12.

  Our view is that guidance should also contain information that reduces consumer confusion and enables a litigant in person to make an informed choice as to whether use a McKenzie Friend. For example, information could be provided about the questions to ask, risks and benefits of the various options open to them (cost, experience, training and availability or not of consumer protections).

• 13.

  We would welcome the involvement of organisations that have expertise in producing information for public consumption in the development of a plain language guide. We would be happy to promote any material through the Legal Choices website.

• 14.

  We recognise the potential challenges for the effective administration of justice which arise from the increase in the number of McKenzie friends. However, as the consultation points out, the court has a wide discretion under its inherent jurisdiction to regulate proceedings before it. In addition, the draft rules of court which are the subject of the consultation provide that an order permitting a McKenzie friend to be granted rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation in open court should be granted only where there is good reason to do so (draft rule 3.23(7)) and, where they have been granted rights of audience or litigation in other proceedings, only where there are exceptional circumstances (draft rule 3.23(8)).

• 15.

  These powers enable the court to control the use of McKenzie friends, and limit or prevent their involvement in litigation where it would not further the effective administration of justice. The Tribunals are experienced in handling non lawyer representatives, including those of dubious quality and behaviour, and it may be that learning lessons from the Tribunal judiciary would be more effective than a ban on fees.

• 16.

  Given the extent of these powers, we are unconvinced of the case for introducing a prohibition on fee recovery. A blanket fee prohibition means litigants in person may not get access to support, even where there are no quality issues. For example, it would limit the ability of charities to charge a small amount to cover their costs. The fee prohibition would also be difficult to enforce and would be easy to circumvent.

• 17.

  Although the ways in which people find and use legal services are changing, and there is innovation in the legal services market, many people still cannot get access to the legal advice that they need at an affordable price. 81% of the public find the justice system intimidating and 63% of the public do not believe professional legal advice is affordable. 36.6% of people handle their legal problems without seeking advice. 83% of small businesses with a legal problem do not obtain professional help from regulated providers.

• 18.

  The current Regulators' Compliance Code makes it clear at paragraph 2.4 that the duty to have regard to the Code is a general one and does not apply directly to the exercise of specific regulatory functions by regulators in individual cases. This is an extremely important statement of the legal position under the LRRA which should be included in any revised Code. A failure to do so may lead to confusion, unnecessary disputes, increased cost and delay. The failure to include this statement is exacerbated by the fact that the Consultation at paragraph 3.8 talks of the requirements of the code being "delivered by regulators in their day to day activities" and in paragraph 3.15 it refers to regulators having regard to the Code "when delivering their enforcement responsibilities".

• 19.

  We do not wish to raise any further issues.