Safe harbour?

THE MEDIA LABELS THEM 'ASYLUM MILLIONAIRES'.

MINISTERS SUSPECT THEM OF MILKING HOPELESS CASES FOR THE MONEY.

AND IF THAT WERE NOT BAD ENOUGH, IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ARE OVERWORKED AND UNDERPAID.

SOME ARE GETTING OUT - BUT, AS SCOTT NEILSON REPORTS, THOSE STAYING ON ARE DETERMINED TO RAISE STANDARDS

Another of London's top immigration law practices is shutting up shop.

The decision by Winstanley-Burgess to close its doors follows last year's decision by another of London's immigration firms, the Coker Vis Partnership, to call it a day.

Some of the best immigration lawyers, it seems, are fast losing interest in the business of batting for clients hell-bent on staying in Britain.

Why?

Partner David Burgess says the firm conducted a thorough examination of its immigration work and concluded simply that 'it's not worth it'.

'I would sum this job up as very, very horrible', says Jawaid Luqmani, a partner at London immigration firm Luqmani Thompson & Partners, and treasurer of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association (ILPA).

Mr Luqmani explains: 'It is difficult work.

The home secretary, David Blunkett, constantly paints immigration lawyers as a bunch of reckless and crazed individuals who, by representing asylum seekers, are trying to bring down civilisation as we know it.

'Being an immigration solicitor has been, therefore, something you don't want to discuss at dinner parties.

My mother wonders when I'm going to do a real job.'

Immigration work is an unusually demanding field of law, and not just because of the unprecedented level of public hostility and scrutiny.

The lawyers who practise it complain that not only are Home Office systems and the relevant law complex and subject to rapid change, but that the nature of the work itself is often difficult.

Cases often require extensive factual research on behalf of vulnerable and disadvantaged clients who may not speak English, may be fearful and distrustful of those in authority, and may even be homeless or mentally traumatised.

Wesley Gryk, a specialist in immigration law with London-based Wesley Gryk Solicitors, says times have never been tougher for these solicitors.

'A key element in this difficulty is the low quality of decision-making by the Home Office.

In the more than 20 years that I have been involved in the asylum process in this country, I cannot remember a time when the decision-making by Home Office officials has been of such a low standard,' Mr Gryk says.

'It is a telling fact that, while the Home Office, according to 2002 figures, only granted 10% of initial applications, some 22% of the cases that went to appeal were then successful.

This clearly demonstrates the Home Office's current strategy of deciding cases as quickly as possible - without ensuring that just decisions are taken,' he says.

The lot of the asylum lawyer is made far worse, say the specialists, by the attempts of the tabloid press to smear anyone working on behalf of asylum seekers within the legal aid system.

As recently as January, the press labelled 19 firms and one specialist law centre as 'asylum millionaires', accusing them of cashing in on the legal aid system.

This, of course, ignored the fact that this is just income, not profit - far from it, in fact.

'This is a totally unwarranted insult to a large body of committed lawyers and caseworkers who have chosen to work in a field of law which - because it is remunerated mostly at legal aid rates of 50 an hour - is one of the most poorly paid of all areas,' Mr Gryk, one of those listed, says.

'The fact that a number of highly respected legal aid immigration practices have recently had to close speaks volumes about the current difficulties we are facing.

'But the government continues to use us as scapegoats for the problems resulting from the way that they themselves have chosen to deal with asylum seekers.'

Solange Valdez, an immigration caseworker at the Hammersmith & Fulham Community Law Centre, agrees.

'Immigration work is not an attractive, well-paid or glamorous job.

Legal aid rates don't cover the work done after 6pm and weekends - work done for free.'

Mr Luqmani says placing asylum seekers out of the reach of proper legal representation is the government's agenda.

One way to do this, explains Mr Gryk, is by the incremental withdrawal of legal aid for those seeking asylum.

'The chief adjudicator himself, who is responsible for administering the work of all immigration adjudicators, has made clear his view that the appeal system simply could not continue to function and accomplish just results if legal representation were removed from those asylum seekers currently pursuing appeals.'

Mr Luqmani says that one example of the government's bid to drive a wedge between asylum seekers and their lawyers is the Legal Services Commission's (LSC) recent decision to remove devolved powers from all but 22 of the firms currently practising immigration law in the UK.

These powers allow lawyers to issue public funding certificates in emergency cases.

'But from 1 April that will now be removed from immigration solicitors for all High Court work in judicial review or statutory review,' Mr Luqmani says.

'No doubt, some solicitors will still be asking themselves what the hell they went through all of the negotiating, bargaining, passing of audits and drawing up of contracts for - only to be told that they now won't have the opportunity to carry on in practice as they'd originally planned.'

Maria Fernandes is the sole principal at north London firm Fernandes Vaz and chairwoman of the Law Society's immigration law committee.

Fresh from securing the release of a client from an immigration detention centre the day before, Ms Fernandes complains that the timeframes and level of work involved with practising asylum law are 'monstrous'.

She is also doing less asylum work these days, she says.

'You've got to be on the ball all of the time.

But I've got three young children, so there's no way I'm going to be stuck on the phone to the Home Office at 9pm on a Friday, when they're not even picking up,' Ms Fernandes says.

'There are a few good immigration officers.

But the rest are rude and patronising.

They will hang up on you several times in a row and I've had cases where I've had to plead to my MP,' she says.

The lot of the committed immigration lawyer has been further undermined by the small number of unscrupulous solicitors who have drawn criticism for cynically milking the legal aid available to their clients - and then failing to offer adequate legal advice in return.

Government ministers are understood to think such solicitors take on hopeless cases, knowing they will be paid for their work, regardless of its outcome.

Ms Fernandes admits the problem has not gone away.

But the LSC, through its contracting and auditing processes, has taken important steps to curb the cowboys, she says.

The Law Society has pledged to keep an especially close eye on this area of practice, while the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) works closely with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC), the body which regulates non-legally qualified immigration advisers, some of whom seek protection from unwitting solicitors by linking up with a firm.

'Most complaints on immigration go in the direction of the OISC,' Ms Fernandes says.

'The OISC then refers it to the OSS if necessary.

The two are working together pretty well.'

Andrew Holroyd, a partner at Liverpool firm Jackson & Canter and another member of the Law Society's immigration committee, says the system not only pushes out conscientious and genuine immigration lawyers but encourages bulk turnover 'factory firms' to get involved in the sector.

One way to improve the quality of immigration work is to pay a better legal aid rate to those firms who have taken advantage of the Society's immigration panel, he says.

'We want the door to be shut on those firms who are either not on the panel or not working towards membership.

We are also talking to the LSC about the possibility of a kite mark for immigration lawyers,' he adds.

Meanwhile, the government's policy of dispersing asylum seekers out to the regions to await a ruling on their claims has presented asylum solicitors with additional problems.

The LSC provided grants to help law firms gain expertise in an area for which previously they had little need.

But Gizella Hughes, a legal adviser at the Avon and Bristol Law Centre, has first-hand experience of the policy's shortcomings.

'The government hasn't thought through dispersal at all,' Ms Hughes says.

'People become settled into a community and then three months later the government moves them out and they have to start all over again.

Applications are complex and drawn out.

You need the client to remain in one place from the start.'

So, why do asylum lawyers bother? How does the profession manage to retain any asylum lawyers at all?

The job does have its own rewards, explains Mr Holroyd.

'It's one thing to have a client thank you for doing a good conveyance.

It's another to stop them from returning to certain death,' he says.

'The work is interesting and you never get bored, that's for sure.

To practise immigration law on behalf of asylum applicants, is to have a window on the world - without even leaving Liverpool.'

Scott Neilson is a freelance journalist