The Legal Services Commission (LSC) is to plough ahead with controversial plans to penalise asylum and immigration solicitors - such as ending their legal aid contracts - if they fail to achieve a 40% success rate in appeals, the Gazette has learned.

As public outcry over the operation of the whole system reached a new peak, the LSC said in a letter to stakeholders that the 'performance indicator' for success at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal will be introduced in October.


The policy has been attacked for being simplistic, and potentially pushing solicitors out of the field, by failing to take account of variables such as the changing circumstances in the asylum seeker's home country and judicial inconsistency in decision-making.


Solicitors who fail to meet the standards will face 'contract sanctions' determined by the degree of underperformance. However, the LSC has agreed to consult further on what these sanctions should be.


The LSC has also decided to postpone its plan to reinstate devolved powers to grant controlled legal representation (CLR) to all suppliers. It explained that without the safety net of the contract sanctions, 'we have decided there is too much risk to both clients and the fund'.


Paul Newell, head of immigration policy at the LSC, insisted the 40% target was 'reasonable and achievable' given that all appeal cases where representation was being funded by CLR had to have a 50:50 chance of winning. He added that the figure allowed for a '10% tolerance for any vagaries in decision-making' over a large enough caseload.


Wesley Gryk, Law Society council member for immigration, said: 'The LSC is effectively pushing lawyers to take on the "easy win" cases and ignore those potential clients where success is uncertain, but the stakes for the individuals are very high.'


Law Society President Kevin Martin said the 40% target was a 'crude and misleading evaluation'. He added: 'However, we are pleased that the LSC has agreed to delay implementation until October in line with the procedures for making contract changes agreed with the Law Society.'