Immigration law specialist solicitors this week backed government efforts to banish rogue legal advisers from the system.

But at the same time they expressed concerns over how ministers are prepared to go about the task through measures including raids on law firms.

Launching a raft of proposals aimed at stamping out abuse of the current asylum system, the Home Office and Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) said a priority would be getting rid of unqualified legal advisers and clamping down on the law firms that shelter them.

The consultation suggested that Immigration Services Commissioner (ISC) staff could enter a law firm's premises and demand that documents be produced and explanations provided where a complaint has been lodged.

Where the ISC suspects that a firm is harbouring an unqualified advisor, it would be able to obtain a court warrant, allowing staff to raid the premises and seize materials.

The paper suggests that designated professional bodies such as the Law Society should be legally required to provide swifter co-operation with the ISC when complaints arise.

The proposals would also see a merging of the current two-tier appeal process into a single appeal to a new tribunal headed by an immigration judge, plus restricted access to the higher courts.

Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva agreed it was essential to raise standards of advice for asylum seekers and said Chancery Lane was already working with agencies such as the ISC to root out problem advisers.

'The asylum system is being abused by unqualified legal advisers who should be regulated to the same high standard as solicitors,' she said.

However, Chris Randall, executive committee member of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, voiced fears that raids on law firms could impinge on the solicitor/client privilege, while changes to the appeals process could lead to lack of consistency in decision making.

He said the proposals had increased vilification of asylum seekers and their lawyers in the press, and argued that the government's quest for quality conflicted with what it was doing to legal aid.

Stefan Vnuk, head of immigration at London firm Fisher Meredith, accused the government of basing the proposals on 'broad accusations and finger pointing' and argued that existing mechanisms should be used to deal with problems so that innocent asylum seekers do not suffer.

A DCA spokeswoman said the department would be consulting on the privilege aspect of the proposals.

See Editorial, page 15 (see [2003] Gazette, 30 October)

By Paula Rohan