Fears about the future of publicly funded immigration advice are growing this week as it emerged that yet another leading firm is threatening to pull out, saying it cannot provide a quality service for clients within the current system.

London firm Ole Hansen & Partners decided not to accept new cases in the light of new funding arrangements, including financial thresholds, that were imposed on firms in the capital last month.

The Legal Services Commission (LSC) has now called an emergency meeting with the firm to discuss the situation.

Ole Hansen follows top immigration specialists Winstanley Burgess - which shut last year - and Wesley Gryk, which said last month that it would no longer accept legally aided immigration cases.

Partner Ole Hansen said the firm had been prepared to give the new arrangements a chance, but lost patience when the LSC initially refused to grant a funding extension for representing three young children who had entered the country legally to be with their parents.

A separate application following the directions of an adjudicator to provide witness statements was also turned down.

Mr Hansen said the new arrangements had left committed firms working for nothing and wading their way through frustrating bureaucracy.

'We have never done it for the money - but now not only is it badly paid, we can't provide an adequate service,' he argued.

Mr Hansen said he would meet the LSC but refused to accept any new cases unless the system changed for the better.

LSC immigration head Crispin Passmore said he hoped it could reach an amicable solution with the firm.

He admitted that the changes were taking time to bed in, but insisted that the new system would bring improvements.

But Legal Aid Practitioners Group director Richard Miller said the LSC was risking driving out the firms it wanted to keep on board.

'The mere loss of Winstanley Burgess, Wesley Gryk and Ole Hansen would be very serious,' he warned.

'[But] many other immigration practitioners have told me that they are only hanging on to see how the new system works out in practice.

If it is not very flexible and efficient, it is likely that many more of the best lawyers will leave.'

And Chris Randall, executive committee member of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, said it was ironic that a system aimed at improving quality was having 'precisely the opposite effect'.

The news emerged as the High Court dismissed a challenge to the legality of processes at the Harmondsworth removal centre last week.

Independent charity the Public Law Project argued that the fast- track procedure was too speedy and did not allow applicants to put forward their claims properly.

But Mr Justice Collins said the system was flexible enough, as legal representatives could request adjournments.

By Paula Rohan