Tough accreditation exams for publicly funded immigration work were branded an 'extreme measure' that will prove the 'final straw' for many practitioners this week.

Wesley Gryk, newly elected Law Society Council member for immigration, said the exams have met widespread opposition from practitioners.


All solicitors wishing to perform legal aid immigration work must pass the two three-hour exams by April this year. The scheme has been devised by the Legal Services Commission (LSC) and the Law Society.


Mr Gryk said: 'Large numbers of solicitors are leaving immigration work because they are failing to get accredited, and there are certainly cases where people I respect very much and know to be good practitioners have failed the exam.


'Much of the bad practice in the past has largely gone away anyway because of monitoring by the LSC. Other fields of law do not have such complicated procedures, so why immigration?'


Matthew Davies, executive director of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association (ILPA) and partner at north London firm Wilson & Co, said his firm had spent £6,500 on training to put 18 staff through the exams, with a further £40,000 in lost chargeable hours.


Speaking in a personal capacity, he said: 'This is by far the most Draconian scheme compared to the family and children panels, because every single person active in immigration legal aid work is required to take the exam, not just those who want to be on a panel.'


Alison Stanley, chairwoman of the Law Society's immigration law committee, added: 'In my own view, the agony of a three-hour exam is not appropriate for senior practitioners. An exam will not tell you whether someone is a good adviser - it is about what they do with the knowledge they have.'


Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva said the scheme would help advisers demonstrate competence and would highlight weaknesses. She said it was flexible rather than complicated by having various levels of accreditation.


The LSC's Crispin Passmore, director of the Community Legal Service, said the scheme had broad support and was set up in response to evidence of poor-quality advice.