The SRA has told immigration firms that they must improve, citing a host of issues concerning supervision of solicitors and adherence to regulations.

The solicitors’ regulator was forced to issue fresh guidance to the sector last week, after a review of immigration services found several areas that need to be addressed.

Firms had poor record-keeping and failed to maintain proper training records, while there was also reluctance to report potential misconduct of individuals despite this being a regulatory requirement.

Disciplinary action is already under way involving 10 different firms after ‘significant shortcomings’ were discovered in their work, and there is concern that there is a wider problem in the immigration sector.

The SRA’s intervention is notable for its timing, as several government ministers have criticised the conduct of immigration practitioners for their role in assisting asylum seekers. The regulator’s public expressions of concern are likely to add fuel to those making critical comments on how the sector operates.

‘This is an area of work which needs providers to be up to date in what is often a challenging landscape,’ said SRA chief executive Paul Philip. ‘Our recent review found lots of good practice in solicitor firms. It also showed that there are areas where some firms need to do better, for instance when it comes to good record-keeping, reporting misconduct in other firms, and appropriate supervision of less senior staff.’

The SRA’s review involved a survey of 70 firms and subsequent meetings with 40 firms who had given cause for concern. Visits were made to 38 of these firms to speak in person with a fee-earner and review two of their files each.

On the majority of files reviewed, the evidence that supervision took place was lacking. A ‘significant’ number of fee-earners did not keep an up-to-date training record and heads of department often had a higher caseload than other members of staff.

Most firms did not know how to report a matter to the SRA, even though they have a duty to do so, and many were reluctant to report misconduct.

Three fee-earners reported receiving no supervision at all, while 20% of heads of department also said they were not supervised. Of the 76 files reviewed, there was evidence of supervision taking place on just 29.

The SRA said it did not always see evidence that firms had discussed the strengths and merits of a case, with 17 of the 76 files reviewed showing no record of any such discussion. All fee-earners interviewed said they gave clients the chance to review case documentation, but there was no evidence of this on 12 files.

The regulator has committed to a further review within 18 months to assess the impact of its latest guidance. Philip stressed that most solicitors in this field do a good job and the emphasis is on supporting firms to meet high standards.

He added: ‘Where we found firms falling short, we took the necessary action to address our concerns and to bring them into compliance with our requirements. We will continue to take robust steps to ensure that this group of vulnerable clients get the help that they need.’