When Is a Lawyer Not Your Lawyer? K v P (2025) Ruling Explained

A Court Ruling That Redefines Protection, Justice and Common Sense

Introduction: The Paradox of Representation

Most of us think we know what a lawyer is — someone you choose, who’s on your side, and whose duty is to act in your best interests. But what happens when that same lawyer is appointed by the court — and suddenly, their duty isn’t to you at all?

That’s the uncomfortable reality exposed in K v P (Criminal Solicitor as Court-Appointed QLR) [2025] EWFC 321 (06 October 2025), a case that raises a profound question: is the justice system protecting vulnerable people, or just protecting its own process?

This ruling forced the Family Court to confront a paradox at the heart of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021: when does legal representation stop being about advocacy and start being about procedure? The case uncovers a subtle but vital distinction — and it matters for anyone who assumes that “having a lawyer” automatically means having protection.

1. A Court-Appointed Lawyer Isn’t Your Lawyer

Under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, if someone accused of abuse is barred from personally cross-examining their alleged victim, the court appoints a Qualified Legal Representative (QLR) to handle the questioning instead.

At first glance, that seems like a simple fix. But here’s the twist: a QLR appointed by the court is not responsible to the party they represent. Their duty is to the court, not to a client.

The law spells it out in black and white:

“A qualified legal representative appointed by the court under subsection (6) is not responsible to the party.”

This means a court-appointed QLR isn’t a traditional advocate fighting for one side’s victory. Instead, they serve as a neutral mechanism to keep the trial fair while protecting a vulnerable witness from direct confrontation. It’s a functional role, not a personal one — justice as a process, not a relationship.

2. True Protection Means Feeling Safe, Not Just Being Safe

This distinction came sharply into focus in K v P. The father’s court-appointed QLR happened to be the same solicitor representing him in a parallel criminal case for domestic abuse — where the mother was the main witness.

Her barrister, Mr De Lane Lea, argued that being cross-examined by the same lawyer who acted for her alleged abuser in the criminal matter made her feel profoundly unsafe. The whole point of the QLR system — to protect victims from intimidation — was being inverted.

The statutory guidance behind the QLR scheme couldn’t be clearer:

“The purpose of the provisions is to ensure that every victim has confidence that the court will be able to offer them every protection needed to allow them to give their best evidence and participate in proceedings safely.”

The President of the Family Division agreed. Legal protection isn’t just about ticking procedural boxes; it’s about creating an environment where people can truly give evidence without fear. Justice depends as much on perception and psychology as on statute.

3. The Dual Role That Undermined the Law’s Purpose

Ultimately, Sir Andrew McFarlane removed the solicitor from his role as court-appointed QLR. His reasoning was simple but profound: once the lawyer also acted privately for the father, his neutrality was compromised.

The judge noted that allowing the same person to wear both hats — court appointee and private solicitor — would:

“…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.”

The decision drew on concerns raised by the Association of QLRs, including conflicts of interest, loss of independence, and the risk of undermining public confidence in the protection system. The message is clear: a court-appointed lawyer’s loyalty must never be divided.

Conclusion: Justice Is Also About How It Feels

K v P highlights a rarely discussed truth — that legal representation can look fair on paper yet feel profoundly unfair in practice. The case reaffirms that the QLR scheme exists to protect both justice and humanity, ensuring victims can speak without fear.

But there’s a sting in the tail. After being removed as the court-appointed QLR, the same solicitor told the court he might now simply act as the father’s private family lawyer instead. Legally permissible? Yes. Emotionally protective? Hardly.

That irony exposes the limits of procedural safeguards in family law: even when the court gets the principle right, the system may still fall short in practice.

In the end, K v P is less about technicalities and more about empathy — a reminder that the justice system’s duty isn’t only to be fair, but to feel fair to those who depend on it most.

Case Reference

K v P (Criminal Solicitor as Court-Appointed QLR) [2025] EWFC 321 (06 October 2025)

About Paradigm Family Law LLP

Paradigm Family Law LLP is a boutique family law firm specialising in complex and high-net-worth divorce cases, cross-border matters, and financial remedy disputes. We operate on a fixed-fee basis, offering clients clarity, strategy, and transparency from start to finish.

Clients benefit through faster, fairer, and more consistent settlements — underpinned by both human and machine intelligence.

When Is a Lawyer Not Your Lawyer?