Legal Services Commission to slash cases of failing immigration firms by 20%

CIVIL CONTRACTING: warning to poorly performing firms which fail to meet quality standards

Immigration firms that fall down on Legal Services Commission (LSC) audits and quality standards will see the number of cases they can take on slashed by 20% from April 2003.

Amendments to next year's civil contract will also see firms undertaking other types of publicly funded work facing the same cuts where there are 'significant' concerns about over-claiming or quality, or there is a need to reallocate resources regionally.

In 'exceptional' circumstances, contracts will not be renewed at all.

It will take a broad-brush approach to immigration firms that fall into category three - the worst classification under the audit system - by cutting their matter starts by 20%, although this will be open to review for firms that win appeals on audits.

The LSC said it took the action because assessments such as peer reviews showed that many immigration firms in particular were providing an 'unacceptable service to vulnerable clients'.

However, the LSC said it 'broadly' expects to award the same number of non-immigration matter starts.

It is also looking to widen the bidding criteria for new contracts and is considering extending the current rolling one-year contract system from 2004, following consultation with the profession.

Jawaid Luqmani, treasurer of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, commended the LSC for trying to weed out inadequate firms while at the same time making sure there were enough suppliers.

'This is a difficult balance and I suspect it would be taking more drastic action by getting rid of those that are robbing the stakeholder and the taxpayer if it did not have difficulty in making sure there were enough suppliers,' he said.

Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva said: 'We are working closely with the Legal Services Commission to ensure that vulnerable clients receive good quality immigration advice.

We are determined to help them root out any solicitor firms abusing the legal aid system.'

Karen Mackay, director of the Legal Action Group, said she was pleased the LSC was making use of peer review, but she expressed concerns that immigration matter starts would be reduced according to 'poor-quality' auditors' conclusions.

Legal Aid Practitioners Group director Richard Miller said he understood the LSC's intention, but feared problems with the audit process made it an unreliable basis on which to deprive immigration firms of matter starts and possibly put them out of business.

Paula Rohan