Have a question?
033 3772 0409

In The Press

QLR is an advocate for the court, not the parties – Adam Bloodworth publishes case note in LexisPSL News Analysis (20 October 2025)

Date: 20/10/2025
Duncan Lewis, InThePress Solicitors, QLR is an advocate for the court, not the parties – Adam Bloodworth publishes case note in LexisPSL News Analysis

Adam Bloodworth, a Family Law solicitor at Duncan Lewis, has authored a detailed case note published in LexisPSL News Analysis examining the recent Family Court decision in K v P (Criminal Solicitor as Court-Appointed QLR) [2025] EWFC 321.

 

In this significant case, the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, held that a qualified legal representative (QLR)—who was also acting as the alleged abuser’s solicitor in related criminal proceedings—could not continue in their court-appointed role within the Family Court.

 

While there was no suggestion of any wrongdoing, the President emphasised the importance of the QLR’s role as an advocate for the court rather than the parties, highlighting the need for independence and perceived neutrality when assisting the court in the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses.

 

In his commentary, Adam explores:

 

  • The practical implications of the court’s ability to terminate a QLR appointment where neutrality might be in question;
  • The potential conflicts that can arise when lawyers or firms act across both family and criminal proceedings; and
  • The wider professional considerations for practitioners balancing duties to the client with duties to the court.

 

Adam notes that the judgment serves as an important reminder that even where dual representation is technically permissible, the perception of independence is central to the effectiveness of the QLR scheme and to maintaining confidence in the fairness of the process.

 

“Even though the court could not terminate representation by a lawyer that an alleged abuser instructs outside of the QLR regime, where they instruct a lawyer even though it is clear that the instruction may distress the alleged victim, it may appear that they are doing so to further distress the alleged victim. A lawyer that allows themselves to be instructed in such circumstances may have to consider the negative impact of their instruction on their own client’s case.”

 

The full article is available to read via Lexis News Analysis:
 K v P (Criminal Solicitor as Court-Appointed QLR) [2025] EWFC 321

 

About the Author:
Adam Bloodworth is a solicitor in the Family Law department at Duncan Lewis Solicitors. He regularly advises on complex matters involving safeguarding, domestic abuse, and children law proceedings.

 

If you require specialist support from our Family & Child Care team, please contact Adam Bloodworth via email at adamb@duncanlewis.com or telephone on 02031190848