O’Leary: Lot of bad practice in the privately paid sector
A leading immigration lawyer was “gobsmacked” by a Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) finding that legally aided work was perceived as being “of lower quality”.
Barry O’Leary, partner at London immigration law firm Wesley Gryk, said his perception was that “a lot of the bad practice is actually in the privately paid sector, not in the legal aid sector”.
Speaking on a podcast by immigration and asylum law blog Free Movement, Mr O’Leary was responding to a thematic review by the SRA of law firms providing asylum work, published in July.
The SRA said 18 out of the 25 firms visited for the review “reported providing asylum services to clients who had chosen to pay for it privately, even though they would have been eligible for legal aid.
“This was because the perception of legal aid-funded work was that it was of a lower quality.
“Anecdotally, some legal aid firms had no capacity and were operating waiting lists or having to turn clients away.”
Mr O’Leary described the review as “really important” and said he was “an absolute supporter” of the regulator doing this kind of work, especially in regard to the needs of the most vulnerable.
However, when it came to the perception that legally aided work was “of lower quality”, Mr O’Leary said he was “quite gobsmacked” by this. “I don’t have that perception”.
Mr O’Leary said his perception was, from what he’d seen, that “a lot of the bad practice is actually in the privately paid sector, not in the legal aid sector.
“It’s the lack of capacity that is the real issue, and the evidence is out there for that.”
He went on: “I’m not sure who the solicitors are who are saying there is lack of quality. Maybe it is something they have come across and it may be that there is in certain instances, but I think that the reason why the majority are having to find the money to pay is because of the dearth of legal aid availability. That’s what I’m finding.”
Mr O’Leary said that generally the SRA’s review was a “worthwhile review”, highlighting good practice, and “something people should read”.
The SRA separately looked at the training records of 143 immigration lawyers, which it described as “variable”.
This review found that all had undertaken “some learning and development” but there was “room for improvement” because almost a third simply listed what they had done, rather than recording why learning and development was required.
Mr O’Leary said it was not a regulatory requirement for solicitors to keep a training record, but it was good practice and the SRA provided a template.
“I think that’s all really good and people should definitely look at it.
However, in what he described as a “personal opinion”, he said that “what I would hate is that these kind of reviews lead to more of a tick-box exercise”.
Mr O’Leary went on: “Records are good, but I would encourage people to keep absolutely up to date.” They could do this by going to Free Movement courses and Immigration Law Practitioners Association meetings or subscribing to government alerts.
Immigration lawyers should read the reviews and implement them, but also think of “practical ways” to keep up-to-date.
Leave a Comment