In depth: Immigration firms given clean bill of health

Almost exactly a year ago, the mass media had immigration lawyers firmly in their sights. The Daily Mail conducted an undercover investigation into the practices of three law firms advising clients how to succeed in their asylum claims. Lawyers were caught on camera appearing to coach clients what to say to progress their claims. The paper’s reporting referred to ‘lying lawyers’ who charged between £4,000 and £10,000 and ‘invented elaborate fake stories to back up the [claims for asylum]’.

The government seized the opportunity to push its own immigration agenda, setting up a professional enablers task force to encourage reporting of lawyers’ misconduct. The then home secretary Suella Braverman (pictured) fanned the flames, stating that ‘crooked immigration lawyers must be rooted out and brought to justice’. She added that, while the majority of lawyers acted with integrity, ‘we know that some are lying to help illegal migrants game the system’. 

Labour’s shadow justice secretary Steve Reed described the task force as ‘too little too late’.

The Law Society portrayed the response to the Mail’s story as ‘lawyer-bashing’ – but the Solicitors Regulation Authority appeared more willing to do the government’s bidding. Within a week of the Mail’s sting, three firms had been shut down and three solicitors prevented from practising – an unprecedentedly swift response. SRA leaders cleared their diaries to respond to a summons from Braverman to meet to discuss rogue lawyers.

Six weeks later, an SRA warning notice was issued which appeared relatively benign – reminding solicitors and firms to adhere to regulations – but which fed the narrative that this was a wider problem across the immigration law sector.

A review of that sector was promised, and the results published this week. Yet the Mail and the rest of the general media have yet to cover it. The reason might be that the SRA could find little evidence of widespread malpractice: the 25 firms probed generally had ‘robust’ systems in place to validate potential asylum claims and properly scrutinise client identities.

Far from clients being blindly taken on and a case built to support their claims, 10% of applicants were turned away, on average. One firm rejected 40% of potential asylum instructions.

All fee-earners spoken to took steps to verify a client’s identity, with every client asked to produce hard copy identity documents. This was generally done as part of an initial face-to-face meeting. Lawyers asked to see passports, driving licences or identification papers such as a birth or marriage certificate. Photographs or digital scans of documents were not accepted because of the risk that they could be electronically manipulated.

Clients would often return to provide further evidence in support of their claim after the initial meeting. Where this occurred, almost all of the firms (23) stated they would revisit the previous merits assessment.

Generally, the SRA found the firms visited had structures in place to make sure that work was being monitored by a more experienced supervisor to check quality. Most heads of department reported that they maintained close oversight of their asylum departments’ work, although only 62% of files reviewed had evidence of supervision in them.

Fee-earner competence was generally checked on a regular basis and firms understood their obligations to make sure lawyers were up to date with new rules and regulations. The one red flag was inconsistency in approaches to evidencing that development needs were being reviewed.

The SRA was concerned about the widespread use of WhatsApp to communicate with asylum clients, and many firms had not considered the implications for data protection, supervision and fee-earner wellbeing.

While issues were raised, the message being pushed by the regulator was a positive one, with the press release saying the review ‘highlights general good practice and areas for improvement’.

Publishing the thematic review, 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.’

Those looking for proof of an endemic dishonesty and recklessness in the handling of asylum claims will presumably be reassured by the SRA’s conclusions. There is no denying what last year’s newspaper sting uncovered, but there appears no evidence of wider malpractice. For now, the lawyer-bashing is on hold.

This article is now closed for comment.