The SRA’s review of asylum law firms has elicited strong reactions from leading legal experts.
- Barry O’Leary, a partner at a notable immigration law firm, expressed disbelief at the perceived quality of legally aided work.
- The SRA found evidence that asylum clients often opt for private legal services due to quality perceptions.
- O’Leary highlighted that the real issue lies in the capacity constraints of legal aid services.
- The review also noted a need for improved training records among immigration lawyers.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) conducted a thematic review of law firms providing asylum services, which has stirred significant discussion among legal professionals. Barry O’Leary, a partner at Wesley Gryk, a prominent immigration law firm, voiced his astonishment at the findings. He was particularly surprised by the perception that legal aid-funded work was deemed to be of lower quality compared to privately funded services. O’Leary shared that this perception did not align with his experience, which suggested that malpractices were more prevalent in the privately funded sector.
The review conducted by the SRA revealed that 18 out of the 25 firms surveyed were offering asylum services to clients who chose to pay privately, despite being eligible for legal aid. The primary reason cited was a belief that privately funded work was of superior quality. This has led to instances where some legal aid firms have been forced to turn clients away or operate waiting lists due to a lack of capacity.
O’Leary emphasised the importance of the SRA’s review, considering it a crucial step in addressing the needs of vulnerable individuals. He strongly supported the regulator’s efforts to scrutinise and improve the sector. However, he reiterated his surprise regarding the quality perceptions of legal aid work. According to him, the shortage in legal aid availability compelled many to resort to privately funded services, indicating a more systemic issue of inadequate resources rather than quality.
The SRA’s examination extended to the training practices of 143 immigration lawyers. While it found that all practitioners had engaged in some form of learning and development, the documentation and rationale behind this learning lacked consistency. Approximately one-third of the lawyers listed their training activities without justifying the necessity of these activities. O’Leary acknowledged that while maintaining training records was not a mandatory requirement, it was regarded as best practice, with the SRA providing templates to assist with this process.
O’Leary articulated a personal concern that reviews of this nature could devolve into superficial exercises if not handled with due diligence. He urged legal professionals to not only adhere to recommended practices but also to pursue practical methods to remain informed and updated. He advised attendance at relevant courses and meetings and staying abreast of governmental communications to ensure ongoing competence in the field.
The SRA’s review highlights critical issues within asylum law practice, urging a reevaluation of service quality and training methods.
