The Rise of McKenzie Friends: Support, Risk, and the Reality in UK Courts | JSH Law

As more people navigate family court proceedings without legal representation, McKenzie Friends are becoming an increasingly visible part of the system. For many litigants in person, they offer practical support at a time when it is most needed. But while the right support can make a real difference, the wrong support can create serious and often irreversible consequences. Understanding that distinction—and where the risks lie—is now essential for anyone managing their own case.

---

Why McKenzie Friend support matters

Over the past decade, the landscape of the family courts has changed significantly.

Increasing numbers of people are now navigating proceedings without legal representation. The reasons are well understood — rising legal costs, reduced access to legal aid, and the practical reality that many simply cannot afford traditional representation.

In response, a growing number of litigants in person have turned to McKenzie Friends for support.

For many, that support can be the difference between managing a case and becoming overwhelmed by it.

But as their presence in the courts has increased, so too has the need to properly understand what they are — and what they are not.

---

What Is a McKenzie Friend?

The concept of a McKenzie Friend originates from case law and is now an established part of court practice in England and Wales.

At its simplest, a McKenzie Friend is someone who provides support to a litigant in person during legal proceedings.

That support can include:

• Taking notes in court
• Helping organise documents
• Assisting with preparation
• Providing quiet guidance during hearings

They may sit beside you in court and help you stay focused and organised.

But their role is limited.

They are not your representative.

They do not automatically have the right to address the court, they cannot sign documents on your behalf, and they do not conduct litigation.

This distinction is fundamental.

2026 legal update: what the rules actually permit

The court’s published guidance remains the starting point. The judicial Practice Guidance on McKenzie Friends (2010) recognises the litigant’s right to reasonable assistance. This includes moral support, note-taking, helping with case papers and quiet advice. A McKenzie Friend does not acquire an independent right to address the judge, question witnesses, sign court documents on your behalf or conduct litigation.

Attendance at a private family hearing is not automatically prohibited. There is a strong presumption in favour of allowing reasonable assistance, subject to the court’s control and the interests of justice. Tell the court who will accompany you as early as possible. Your proposed McKenzie Friend may be asked for a brief account of their experience and confirmation that they understand confidentiality and the limits of the role.

Paid support is not automatically unlawful. The guidance permits lawful fees for appropriate assistance, including clerical preparation and non-reserved advice. Payment, however, does not turn a McKenzie Friend into an authorised solicitor or confer rights of audience or a right to conduct litigation.

What about Mazur? In CILEX and others v Mazur and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369, the Court of Appeal examined how unauthorised staff may perform litigation tasks for and under the responsibility of an authorised person in a regulated setting. It did not give independent McKenzie Friends a general entitlement to conduct litigation for clients. Rights of audience and the conduct of litigation remain distinct reserved activities under the Legal Services Act 2007.

The practical distinction: assistance should enable you to understand and manage your proceedings. It should not put an unregulated supporter in charge of the case or create confusion about who is responsible for filing, service, statements of truth and compliance with court orders.

---

Why Their Use Has Increased

The increase in the use of McKenzie Friends is not accidental.

It reflects a wider shift in access to justice.

Legal representation is, in many cases, expensive. For some, it is simply out of reach.

At the same time, the complexity of family proceedings has not reduced.

The result is a growing number of individuals who are expected to manage legally complex situations without formal support.

In that context, it is entirely understandable that people seek assistance where they can find it.

McKenzie Friends have emerged as part of that response.

---

The Benefit — and Why It Matters

When used properly, a McKenzie Friend can provide genuine value.

They can:

• Help you stay organised
• Improve how your case is prepared
• Support you during stressful hearings
• Provide clarity where the process feels overwhelming

For many litigants in person, particularly in emotionally demanding cases, that support is not just helpful — it is essential.

It can increase confidence, improve presentation, and make the process more manageable.

---

The Other Side of the Picture

However, the growth of this sector has also highlighted a more difficult reality.

There is no single standard for who can act as a McKenzie Friend.

Unlike solicitors or barristers, they are not subject to:

• Formal qualification requirements
• Regulatory oversight
• Mandatory professional insurance

This creates a wide variation in the quality of support available.

Some individuals operate with care, structure, and a clear understanding of their role.

Others may not.

---

Where Risk Can Arise

The risk is not simply about competence.

It is about structure.

Problems tend to arise where the boundary between support and control becomes unclear.

For example:

• Where decisions are effectively made for the litigant
• Where communication is handled on their behalf
• Where the case begins to feel as though it is being “run” by someone else

This is rarely intentional.

It often develops gradually.

But when it happens, it can affect both the integrity and the perception of the case.

There is also a very real, practical cost where support is poorly structured. What may initially appear to be a cheaper or more accessible option can, in some cases, lead to significant financial and personal loss. This can arise where a McKenzie Friend has little or no legal experience, offers services without clear boundaries, or operates without any form of professional accountability. Warning signs can include a lack of onboarding or written agreement, no clear explanation of their role, no insurance, and a tendency to take control rather than support. In those circumstances, mistakes are not just procedural—they can affect outcomes. Poorly drafted documents, missed deadlines, or misguided strategic decisions can result in prolonged proceedings, increased costs, and in some cases, irreversible damage to a person’s position. The reality is that in litigation, the consequences of getting it wrong are not theoretical—they are measured in time, money, and outcomes that cannot always be undone.

---

The Variation in Experience

Another factor to consider is the variation in experience across the sector.

Some McKenzie Friends bring years of practical exposure to court processes.

Others may have very limited experience.

Without formal standards, it can be difficult for a litigant to distinguish between the two.

This places an additional responsibility on those seeking support to ask the right questions and make informed decisions.

---

Practical Safeguards

If you are considering using a McKenzie Friend, there are some simple steps that can help protect your position:

• Ask about their experience and background
• Understand clearly what they will and will not do
• Ensure you remain in control of your case at all times
• Keep all arrangements clear and documented
• Be cautious of anyone presenting themselves as a substitute for a solicitor
• Ask for a written scope of work, fees and cancellation terms before paying
• Check experience, references where appropriate, and whether professional indemnity insurance is held; do not assume it is compulsory
• Confirm how sensitive family court documents and children’s information will be stored and kept confidential
• Ask who will prepare drafts, who will approve them and who remains responsible for signing, filing and service
• Be wary of promises of guaranteed outcomes, pressure to exclude qualified advice or claims of an automatic right to speak for you in court

These steps are not about limiting support.

They are about ensuring that support is used properly.

---

The Balance That Needs to Be Struck

There is a clear tension within this space.

On one hand, access to justice requires that people are able to obtain support.

On the other, there is a need to ensure that support does not become something it is not intended to be.

Finding that balance is essential.

Support should strengthen your position, not compromise it.

---

Further guidance and related support

For the legal limits of the role, consult the official McKenzie Friends Practice Guidance and Schedule 2 of the Legal Services Act 2007. For further practical context, see JSH Law’s McKenzie Friend support in private-law children cases.

Final Thoughts

The rise of McKenzie Friends reflects a system under pressure.

It also reflects the adaptability of those navigating it.

For litigants in person, the key is not whether to seek support.

It is how that support is structured.

Used correctly, it can be a significant advantage.

Used without clarity, it can introduce unnecessary risk.

Understanding that distinction is one of the most important steps you can take in protecting your case.

---

Need Structured Support With Your Case?

If you are navigating proceedings as a litigant in person and want clear, structured support that strengthens your case while keeping you in control, you can book an initial consultation below.

---

---

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide regulated legal services. This article is for general information and commentary only and does not constitute legal advice.