NON-SOLICITOR LEGAL ADVISERS SHOULD HAVE THE AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR ME IN THE FAMILY COURTS AND TO MANAGE MY CASE outside court, and that is what I am asking you to ensure happens for me and everyone who cannot afford a Solicitor or Barrister.

Since public funding was withdrawn from many needy people using the Family Courts, and because many ordinary people cannot afford the very high fees of Solicitors and Barristers, a new, affordable, alternative legal adviser and court assistant has become more and more popular throughout the UK.  A non-Solicitor professional legal adviser is known as a 'Professional McKenzie Friend'. 

Professional McKenzie Friends provide competent help and advice at all stages in an individual's case, but in family courts judges still refuse to allow these non-Solicitors the right to speak on behalf of their client, or act as their case manager, even though many of them are extremely knowledgable and professional.  This is unfair to ordinary people, who should be allowed to choose whoever they want to speak up for them in court and manage their case. 

It should not be up to judges to decide if I can have a non-lawyer to speak for me or work for me as my agent, it should be up to me.  I want all non-Solicitor legal advisers to have the automatic right to speak for me in court and manage my case for me, if that is my wish. I don't think it is fair that a judge should decide for me.

There are malicious rumours and gossip, but no documentary evidence, that litigants in person (unrepresented mums and dads) are slowing down courts because they are disorganised or can't represent themselves properly. It is rumoured that has led to chaos in the family courts, but is likely that this is just poor press spread by Solicitors and Barristers, as there just isnt any evidence produce by the court service or other organisations to support these claims.

However, if the allegations about litigants in person causing a slight slow-down in court proceedings were partially true, then surely if  unrepresented individuals were allowed to elect anyone they wanted to speak for them and act as their agent out of court, as an automatic right, then the alleged disruption to proceedings would be minimised.  Wouldnt it?  So, it makes sense to give McKenzie Friends the automatic legal right to speak on behalf of clients and act as their agent, if that is what their clients want. After all, in Employment Tribunals, it is your right to choose a non-lawyer to be your representative, and employment law is far more complex than family law.  So, why should it be different in the family court?