A regulatory review of firms handling asylum claims has found widespread good practice about how clients are vetted and handled.
In the wake of last year’s closure of three firms following an undercover investigation by the Daily Mail, the Solicitors Regulation Authority looked into 25 firms in a thematic review of the sector. Immigration firms have come under scrutiny amid accusations that some lawyers are encouraging people to make false claims. The government last year created a professional enablers taskforce to target lawyers who may be helping migrants to game the immigration system.
But the SRA’s review found little evidence of such practices: a large number had ‘robust’ systems in place to validate potential asylum claims and properly scrutinise client identities.
Most firms took a proactive approach to obtaining and verifying evidence, and on average 10% of potential cases were turned away. The SRA had intended to refer any matters of concern to its disciplinary system, but no such issues were uncovered.
Paul Philip, SRA chief executive, said: ‘Users of asylum legal services can be some of the most vulnerable. It’s common for many to experience stressful or difficult circumstances, and they might have little knowledge of our legal system. The consequences of poor legal work can be particularly severe, long-lasting and difficult to rectify. It’s welcome news that in the main, firms appear to be doing the right things.’
The SRA had already conducted a review of the immigration legal sector in 2022 but announced a further probe following the conduct exposed last summer. Heads of department and fee earners at each firm were interviewed and two files reviewed from each. In total, 64 files were looked at as part of the SRA’s work.
All fee earners took steps to verify a client’s identity, with most doing this during the initial client meeting. Firms stressed the need to meet asylum claimants face-to-face and then use technology to keep clients updated. The SRA found extensive use of WhatsApp messages to communicate with clients and was concerned at how few firms had formal policies in place for the use, storage or filing of data shared in this way.
Most firms provided asylum services to clients who had chosen to pay for it privately, even though they were eligible for legal aid. Anecdotally, some legal aid firms had no capacity and were operating waiting lists or turning clients away.
Structures were in place to make sure work was monitored by a more experienced supervisor, although only 62% of the files reviewed had actual evidence of supervision. Most heads of department said that they maintained close oversight of the asylum department’s work and had knowledge of all the firm’s asylum matters.
Alongside the review, the SRA looked at almost 150 training records of immigration and asylum solicitors to understand if they were maintaining their competence. Most were undertaking learning and development, but the SRA urged them to improve their records of this and to stay familiar with warning notices and guidance.
