Qualified Legal Representatives- guidance from the President- K v P (Criminal Solicitor as Court-Appointed QLR) [2025] EWFC 321

The case involved allegations of domestic abuse. At the hearing on 24th January 2024, a court-appointed Qualified Legal Representative (QLR) was in attendance. The hearing had to be adjourned, as shortly beforehand, the father was charged with criminal offences in relation to domestic abuse of the mother. At the next hearing on 25th February 2025, the court became aware that the father had decided to instruct the QLR to represent him in the criminal proceedings. The mother opposed and applied to the court to discharge the QLR’s appointment. The father opposed the application. The court allowed written submissions from the Association of QLRs (AQLR) and Association of Lawyers for Children (ALC).

In delivering the judgment, the President highlights the key provisions in relation to s31Q-Z of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings 1984, supported by the overriding objective in FPR 1 and PD3A and 3AB.

The President agreed that there should be no blanket prohibition of a court-appointed QLR acting in parallel with criminal proceedings, stating that “to hold otherwise would be disproportionate and unnecessary in circumstances where it is clearly permissible for a party to instruct their criminal defence lawyer to be either their directly appointed QLR or lawyer in the Family court” (paragraph 29).

However, there is a fundamental distinction between QLR’s appointed directly and those appointed by the court being “the essence of a court-appointed QLR is that they will be independent of the prohibited party, and not acting more broadly ‘for’ that party. The role of a court-appointed QLR is not without professional complication and there is benefit in maintaining a separation between that role and that of an instructed lawyer in order to avoid potential conflict and further ethical or professional complexity. For the development that has taken place here to have the impact that it is said to have had on the mother’s already vulnerable state is entirely counter to the stated aim of the provisions [Guidance para 1.4.1]” (paragraph 34).

In this case, the court was satisfied that the court appointed QLR should be discharged and replaced by a different individual by the court.

For future guidance, the President stated “Drawing matters together, it must be the case that, where a court-appointed QLR is or becomes the directly instructed lawyer for a prohibited party in parallel criminal proceedings, the court will give careful consideration to the question of whether the court appointment should be discharged. I gratefully accept the list of factors suggested by the AQLR as being relevant, namely whether the dual role:

(a) compromises the appearance or actuality of QLR independence;

(b) undermines the protective purpose of the QLR scheme;

(c) creates a real or perceived conflict of interest; or

(d) introduces a material imbalance of disclosure or cross-jurisdictional knowledge.

In any given case other factors may also be in play.

For the reasons that I have given, and whilst each case will fall to be evaluated on its own facts, it is difficult to contemplate many cases where it will be proportionate to continue a lawyer’s appointment by the court as QLR where that lawyer also acts directly for the prohibited party in related criminal proceedings. For the court to continue such an appointment will normally cut right across the aim of the provisions in Part 4B and PD 3AB, which is to enhance the quality of the evidence of a vulnerable witness and to reduce the potential for additional distress” (paragraph 35 and 36).