When I am not mediating I spend some time working as a qualified legal representative. This is an interesting and fulfilling role in family proceedings or indeed a civil case in which domestic abuse is alleged.
In these circumstances there is a prohibition against the person accused of domestic abuse from cross examining ie questioning the other party in Court. Quite often there will be special measures ies teens at Court and separate entrances/exits so that never the Twain shall meet.
A qualified legal representative is appointed by the Court simply to ask questions for the individual and this replaced the previous method of questioning which was for the judge to ask the questions. Obviously if a party has got a lawyer representing them there is no need for a QLR.
The QLR’s role is quite limited and there is no duty to advise or indeed confidentiality to the person.
Every system has its drawbacks and I would like to point some out in the hope that one day the system might be changed:
- If the person the QLR is asking questions for instructs a lawyer at the last minute the QLR often doesn’t find about it until they attend Court to find they are not needed. This is very frustrating and the way the scheme works is that the QLR doesn’t get paid the full fee.
- Similarly if the case settles on the day and the QLR has attended but doesn’t ask any questions, despite spending time preparing again they don’t get the full fee. This also applies if the QLR is booked for several days but is not needed for more than the first day. Then they will not gat paid for the multiple days lost.
- It is unclear in what circumstances the QLR can withdraw from a case. For example they may not get sent the file 7 days before the hearing and have sufficient time to prepare. They may not be able to speak to the person in advance of the hearing or the person may be rude to them. As the QLR is appointed by the Court they have to request to be discharged by the judge who may not look at the case until the day of the hearing.
- Fortunately a QLR does get paid now for travel and parking which was a disincentive for acting as a QLR on low legal aid rates.
- As I say the QLR does not get paid the full fee if there is no cross examination at the hearing for whatever reason. The only way this can occur is if the hearing is actually cancelled before the day. This appears to be an anomaly.
- It sometimes takes a long time to get the order from the Court after the hearing which is required to get paid.
- Apart from the points above it can also be difficult if the person wants the QLR to ask questions that the judge does not permit or which are irrelevant. It is important not to let oneself be used as an abuse tool. The questioning can be a difficult process.
- The “client” will often not understand the QLR’s role and ask for advice. This is a difficult issue to handle. Obviously a QLR is not there to advise but in my view they can help the Court by explaining things to the “client.” Many people desperately need advice and really it would be better if they could have legal aid for advice. Legal aid funds are however limited.
- The role of QLR is evolving and it is apparently quite hard to find a QLR sometimes. To increase the number of people willing to act as QLRs I would advise addressing some of the problems above.
- I would say that my role as a mediator helps me in my role as a lT as I often have to deal with litigants in person and vulnerable people.
- Overall despite the drawbacks and flaws in the system I do enjoy the job and intend to carry on acting as a QLR in addition to my everyday advocacy role.
- One final thing I would say: in family cases where domestic abuse is alleged I would suggest mediation would still be possible. At present parties are able to exempt themselves from a mediation information and assessment meeting if they allege domestic abuse. A skilful mediator is capable of dealing with power imbalances and to protecting vulnerable parties. Unfortunately in family cases because domestic abuse is alleged in a lot of cases this means that mediation cannot be used as often as it might be. In a domestic abuse scenario the Court may well want to look into the alleged domestic abuse in relation to contact, but if Cafcass have no safeguarding concerns, then why not try to resolve matters through mediation? It would save a lot of court time.