Content-farming disguised as consumer guidance: a note on directory-published "guides" for litigants in person
Litigants in person searching for a McKenzie Friend are increasingly directed toward directory sites publishing town-by-town "guides" to hiring support. A comparison of these articles across multiple locations reveals templated copy: identical paragraphs on the role and limits of a McKenzie Friend, repeated verbatim with only the place name and byline substituted. This is a recognised local SEO technique, not location-specific guidance, and litigants should be aware that apparent breadth of coverage does not reflect depth of local knowledge or vetting.
Three points of concern for anyone signposting clients to such platforms
1. Editorial content functions as lead generation
"Guidance" articles consistently resolve into directory sign-up prompts and paid listing calls-to-action, rather than neutral procedural information.
2. Commercial recruitment sits inside consumer-facing pages
Discounted McKenzie Friend training courses and freelance earning claims appear alongside content addressed to vulnerable court users — a conflation practitioners should flag when advising on platform choice.
3. Verification claims warrant scrutiny
"Verified and DBS-checked" badges are platform-asserted, not independently audited on the page itself; litigants should ask directly what the check consisted of and when it was completed, rather than relying on a badge.
Bridge The Gap does not operate a referral-fee or paid-listing model. Practitioners listed here are included on the basis of direct assessment, not subscription.
Methodology note: the observations above are drawn from a comparison of publicly accessible "guide" articles across multiple directory sites and locations. Where specific articles are cited in internal reviews, they are retained as references rather than reproduced here.