The DWB Case lost in Court

[Ronnie J]

This is getting ridiculous, this squabble is now spread across at least three threads.

Do us all a favour and take it somewhere else.

I agree with you-It is unfair on the forum.

There is a poster on here (Lettisier) who will confirm that this was a regular occurrence on GOODF, involving the very same people we have on here.

I would point out that everyone was happy to allow the original Jason Bennison thread to stand for two weeks, without complaint. Some were even happy to join in.

It is only since yesterday, when people opted for the right of reply that it got out of control. Perhaps people should take a closer look at who is being dug out?

People like Ronald Clark are absolute lunatics. He went from "never having so much fun" yesterday, to spitting his dummy out and stopping posting 24 hours later. When you get people like that posting, it is only going to end one way.

Anyway, it seems that admin have (rightly so) started locking the threads. They should never have been allowed to have been started but people took advantage of the good will afforded by the forum.

Hopefully, by the end of the day, some form of semblance will have returned here.

[Philistine]

Knock it off please We are doing our best

[Ronnie J]

Knock it off please We are doing our best

[ArthurWankspittle]

So to be a McKenzie friend doesn't necessarily mean you sit next to them in Court, it's anyone who is NOT legally qualified, who 'offers their services in court proceedings'.

That's an interesting point as I always took a MacKenzie Friend to be someone who assisted a person in court by advising them but not appearing for them. If the Law Society take that route it will certainly affect a few peoples business models.

[wserra]

Because, when the choice is between allowing the occasional petty, churlish cat fight and cutting off speech, we prefer the cat fight. Usually they burn themselves out. Sometimes, as here, they need some extinguishing.

[Ronnie J]

Because, when the choice is between allowing the occasional petty, churlish cat fight and cutting off speech, we prefer the cat fight. Usually they burn themselves out. Sometimes, as here, they need some extinguishing.

Oh trust me, these will need extinguishing-They never stop otherwise.

I've witnessed loads over the years. They all start in exactly the same way and always end in locked threads and bannings.

I could have told you that yesterday when the retaliation began.

[Ronnie J]

So to be a McKenzie friend doesn't necessarily mean you sit next to them in Court, it's anyone who is NOT legally qualified, who 'offers their services in court proceedings'.

That's an interesting point as I always took a MacKenzie Friend to be someone who assisted a person in court by advising them but not appearing for them. If the Law Society take that route it will certainly affect a few peoples business models.

You do realise it stems from the case of McKenzie v McKenzie I take it?

It was a helpful tool for people to bring a friend to court to speak on their behalf (normally in family court hearings) The situation has been abused in latter years with people acting for profit and has been mentioned, without indemnity insurance. The spirit of it all was to allow a little help for those who felt intimidated by the whole experience.

[ForumWars]

This link was posted in the now locked thread, but I am bringing it over here, because it is direct and to the point http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press ... w-society/

The logic of this letter applies to JasonDWB, Shelia, or anyone else charging for legal type services, and navigating procedures, and court filings are legal services in my mind. It states in part emphasis added by me

Clients of fee-paid McKenzie Friends have no assurance of their legal knowledge, and are left with no redress if things go wrong. They are not necessarily cheaper than solicitors, who are highly regulated and deliver a high standard of quality service. Our members have witnessed the damage done by the unscrupulous, so we very much welcome any steps that bring clarity to the support that a McKenzie Friend can give.'

Jonathan Smithers added:

'Cuts to legal aid have left many people unable to afford professional legal advice when they need it. But it is wrong to say that the best way to mitigate the damaging consequences of legal aid cuts is to allow non-professionals, who do not need to meet any standards of knowledge or performance, and do not offer clients the same rights of redress if something goes wrong, to charge vulnerable clients a fee. Non-professionals who charge for legal services should not view such exceptional circumstances as being a business opportunity.'

'Legal professionals must abide by an ethical framework that puts the needs of the client first. They also have obligations as officers of the court. McKenzie friends are not bound by these important professional responsibilities, and if they mislead their client there is no recourse. Those who can afford legal advice will always get better value for money by instructing a solicitor or other legal professional.

McKenzie Friends are non-professionals who offer their services in court proceedings and some, despite having no formal legal qualifications, charge for their 'services'. The name McKenzie Friend name comes from a 1970 divorce case - McKenzie v McKenzie.

Not everyone who offers assistance with court proceedings, paid or otherwise, is a McKenzie Friend. The term refers specifically to people who accompany a LIP (Litigant In Person, i.e. unrepresented individual) in court. McKenzie Friends don't have a right of audience, although this can be requested and it's up to the court to grant or deny the right.

Although McKenzie Friends can help LIPs with court documents, they cannot officially represent them, and not everyone who provides help and advice with court proceedings is a McKenzie Friend. The term relates to someone who appears in court with the LIP and the role of MFs was traditionally limited to providing moral support, hence they were much more commonly used in family proceedings, where the emotional side of things comes above the legal side. Losing a money claim is not in the same league as losing your children.

There are a number of forums in the UK where LIPs (most commonly defendants) get help and advice with court proceedings, most of it provided by unqualified individuals. The Consumer Action Group (CAG) and Legal Beagles are probably the biggest examples although there are others such as GOODF, which takes its own approach. They don't charge for the advice, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's always good advice. People could end up with CCJs and costs orders, and would have no recourse against the forums. Just because it's free, it doesn't mean it's always good for you.

Trouble is, legal representation is out of reach for most people, although it is often possible to work on a CFA basis, this doesn't apply to every claim and even when it does, people are not aware of the option. Access to justice is a big problem in the UK and getting worse. It would be nice if we could all get help from qualified solicitors but their charges are often prohibitive, and that pushes people to seek help online.

The official resources such as the CABs are underfunded and understaffed. It's not always possible to get an appointment and, even when you do, the levels of knowledge and quality of advice can vary wildly. Few "advisors" are actually qualified, these days many are just computer operators acting as an interface between the client and the database where the information is stored. The advice is better in some areas (i.e. benefits, housing issues) than others.

As long as people are denied access to qualified resources, they will have to rely on unqualified ones. You can hardly blame the service providers for trying to fill a gap in the market so to speak, or accuse them of being "scammers".

[NYGman]

My point in posting the MF letters was that's is comments are equally relevant to what JasonDWB is doing. Just because it is written on another topic doesn't mean it isn't applicable here. .

This isnt a hard concept to grasp.

[PeanutGallery]

I'd think the issue of McKenzie friends could simply be addressed by making them jointly liable for costs incurred in the litigation if they advance vexatious arguments or pursue litigation beyond what would be otherwise reasonable (ie if the court would or considers placing a CRO on the litigant, then the McKenzie is presumed to have guided them down that road). That way they would need to consider if they could get it right and also put the charlatans in the same boat as their clients.

Also if the client of a McKenzie friend gets a CRO why not consider extending that to the McKenzie as well. It would help to thin the herd and limit the business opportunities of those who exploit this current situation as well.

[ForumWars]

So to be a McKenzie friend doesn't necessarily mean you sit next to them in Court, it's anyone who is NOT legally qualified, who 'offers their services in court proceedings'.

That's an interesting point as I always took a MacKenzie Friend to be someone who assisted a person in court by advising them but not appearing for them. If the Law Society take that route it will certainly affect a few peoples business models.

The original intention was mostly to provide moral support, especially in family proceedings, where you saw them the most, rather than advice. They can't officially represent people but can request the right of audience, which is at the discretion of the court.

Everyone knows MFs are not in the same league as solicitors, and not all are completely unqualified, I happen to know a solicitor without a practising certificate who was offering such services a few years ago. There are some who have paralegal qualifications.

Whilst it's important to ensure you are getting proper advice, qualifications aren't everything. Law degrees give a very general overview of the law but don't arm people with the required knowledge to manage court proceedings. One thing is to know the sources and basis of common law, another is to know which form to fill in, what to put on it and where to file it. Paralegals are often better suited to perform this kind of task as it's more a matter of practical experience rather than academic knowledge.

The law encompasses many areas and qualified professionals do specialise. An employment barrister probably wouldn't do a much better job with bailiff issues than Sheila and Jason because that's just not his area.

[ArthurWankspittle]

My point was that the definition seems to be extending from what I understood a McKenzie friend to be, i.e. a second opinion and advice for a Litigant In Person. It seems now that it is to cover any advice given to a LIP, which is I believe an extension of the interpretation.

As long as people are denied access to qualified resources, they will have to rely on unqualified ones. You can hardly blame the service providers for trying to fill a gap in the market so to speak, or accuse them of being "scammers".

If they have little training, skill, knowledge or success and they continue to accept clients to make money, I call that a scam. We are also talking, or have been, about covering up and suppressing failures and the derogation of rival businesses. Further, the lack of professional insurance, indemnity insurance, etc. point to either a lack of ethics, inability or refusal to obtain insurance, and a general unprofessional approach to their business.

[NYGman]

Again, I was not posting that for the MF issue, I posted it because it really covers the same situation here. Paying Quasi-legal professionals for assistance with the legal process. While what Jason, et al. are doing is certainly not at the level of MF, unless they do this too, but that is irrelevant and I digress.

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press ... w-society/

I will paraphrase what he is saying ... and remove any reference to MF to make this easy for you all

"Clients of fee-paid quasi-Legal and unlicensed persons providing assistance with legal issues have no assurance of their legal knowledge, and are left with no redress if things go wrong. They are not necessarily cheaper than solicitors, who are highly regulated and deliver a high standard of quality service. It is wrong to say that the best way to mitigate the damaging consequences of legal aid cuts is to allow non-professionals, who do not need to meet any standards of knowledge or performance, and do not offer clients the same rights of redress if something goes wrong, to charge vulnerable clients a fee. Legal professionals must abide by an ethical framework that puts the needs of the client first. They also have obligations as officers of the court. These non-professional legal assistants are not bound by these important professional responsibilities, and if they mislead their client there is no recourse. Non-professionals who offer their services with court proceedings and some, despite having no formal legal qualifications, charge for their 'services'."

Get it now?

[Skeleton]

Because, when the choice is between allowing the occasional petty, churlish cat fight and cutting off speech, we prefer the cat fight. Usually they burn themselves out. Sometimes, as here, they need some extinguishing.

Agreed, They also have appeared to have learned that this forum tolerates to a large extent those that do not toe the party line and whose moderators will moderate and not dictate. I think that may be partly behind the explosion of posts, for once they were let off a short leash.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Everyone knows MFs are not in the same league as solicitors, and not all are completely unqualified, I happen to know a solicitor without a practising certificate who was offering such services a few years ago. There are some who have paralegal qualifications.

Equally there are some who pretend (or sincerely believe) the law is totally different from what it actually is, and live their vicarious wannabe lawyer life by being a McKenzie friend. See Mr Ebert.

The law encompasses many areas and qualified professionals do specialise. An employment barrister probably wouldn't do a much better job with bailiff issues than Sheila and Jason because that's just not his area.

A Barrister stands a chance of being covered by indemnity insurance, which I am not sure of in the case of the other two.

[jasonDWB]

A Barrister stands a chance of being covered by indemnity insurance, which I am not sure of in the case of the other two.

...and your evidence is?

[NYGman]

Agreed, They also have appeared to have learned that this forum tolerates to a large extent those that do not toe the party line and whose moderators will moderate and not dictate. I think that may be partly behind the explosion of posts, for once they were let off a short leash.

Agree, for a while I was having DMVP Flashbacks

[ForumWars]

Again, I was not posting that for the MF issue, I posted it because it really covers the same situation here. Paying Quasi-legal professionals for assistance with the legal process. While what Jason, et al. are doing is certainly not at the level of MF, unless they do this too, but that is irrelevant and I digress.

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press ... w-society/

I will paraphrase what he is saying ... and remove any reference to MF to make this easy for you all

"Clients of fee-paid quasi-Legal and unlicensed persons providing assistance with legal issues have no assurance of their legal knowledge, and are left with no redress if things go wrong. They are not necessarily cheaper than solicitors, who are highly regulated and deliver a high standard of quality service. It is wrong to say that the best way to mitigate the damaging consequences of legal aid cuts is to allow non-professionals, who do not need to meet any standards of knowledge or performance, and do not offer clients the same rights of redress if something goes wrong, to charge vulnerable clients a fee. Legal professionals must abide by an ethical framework that puts the needs of the client first. They also have obligations as officers of the court. These non-professional legal assistants are not bound by these important professional responsibilities, and if they mislead their client there is no recourse. Non-professionals who offer their services with court proceedings and some, despite having no formal legal qualifications, charge for their 'services'."

Get it now?

Yes, I got it from the start, and the issue of MFs came up somewhere because Jason did, at some point, act as one, as posted up on another thread here.

However, the picture here is much bigger. It's all well and good for the Law Society to say that non professionals shouldn't be the answer to the cuts in legal aid, but they are not providing the answer either, are they? Instead of yet more cuts, what we need is more funding for services that allow the vulnerable (as mentioned above) as well as the not so vulnerable but still unable to afford professional legal services, to have access to justice. If there is neither legal aid nor suitable free advice, then who are you going to call when you have a problem? The Ghostbusters?

[ArthurWankspittle]

A Barrister stands a chance of being covered by indemnity insurance, which I am not sure of in the case of the other two.

...and your evidence is?

I see you don't understand the words "I am not sure". So, if you would like to correct me please tell us what insurance your business holds, what amounts and what for.

[jasonDWB]

A Barrister stands a chance of being covered by indemnity insurance, which I am not sure of in the case of the other two.

...and your evidence is?

I see you don't understand the words "I am not sure". So, if you would like to correct me please tell us what insurance your business holds, what amounts and what for.

It holds professional indemnity, £2Million (about $3 USD) and for public liability 10M (about $13M USD).