What is a McKenzie friend?
Someone who accompanies a litigant in person in court to provide assistance — taking notes, offering quiet advice and helping with papers — without being a legal representative.
Where the name comes from. A 1970 case, McKenzie v McKenzie, in which a litigant was wrongly prevented from having an assistant present, and the resulting judgment established the principle.
What a McKenzie friend may do:
Provide moral support.
Take notes, which is genuinely valuable since a litigant cannot follow proceedings and record them simultaneously.
Help with case papers and organisation.
Give quiet advice on points of law, procedure and issues, and on questions to ask.
What they may not do without the court's permission:
Address the court — speak, examine witnesses or make submissions. This requires a specific grant of rights of audience, which courts may allow exceptionally but generally do not, and which cannot be assumed.
Conduct the litigation — sign documents, correspond as representative, or manage the case formally.
Act as the litigant's agent in any formal sense.
The presumption. A litigant in person is generally entitled to reasonable assistance from a McKenzie friend, and a court should permit it unless there is good reason not to. The court may refuse where the assistance would not be in the interests of justice — for example where the assistant is disruptive, has a conflict of interest, or where the case is in private and the court considers their presence inappropriate.
Why they matter more than they used to. Substantial reductions in the scope of legal aid, particularly in family and civil matters, left many people representing themselves in proceedings with serious consequences. The rise of McKenzie friends is a direct consequence of that gap, rather than a preference.
The concerns, which are genuine:
Fee-charging McKenzie friends operate commercially while being unregulated — no required qualification, no professional insurance, no complaints body, and no obligation to a professional code.
Consumers have limited recourse where advice is poor, and there have been documented cases of harm.
Proposals to restrict or regulate the fee-charging model have been consulted on repeatedly without resolution.
Free assistance from charities and law centres is preferable where available.
General information, not legal advice.