Des Hudson claims that subjecting immigration solicitors to a two-hour exam if they want to continue doing publicly funded work is ‘the least burdensome’ option for reaccreditation (see [2010] Gazette 4 March, 11). Can he tell us then why solicitors who need to be reaccredited on the children’s law panel and the medical negligence panel are not required to undertake exams to be reaccredited? And why criminal solicitors accredited as duty solicitors never have to be reaccredited at all? And why it is fair that legal aid immigration solicitors will be the only category of solicitors who will have to face doing exams every three years to be able to continue to practise in their chosen area? And why this should be the case when they are already subject to peer review from the LSC and, like all solicitors, required to undertake CPD to keep their knowledge up to date?

Remember that this is reaccreditation – we have done five hours of exams to get accredited in the first place. We should be reaccredited in exactly the same way as panels in other areas of law, by confirming details of CPD and cases worked on. This would be the proportionate and fair option that Des Hudson claims to seek – proportionate because it achieves the aim of ensuring that those already accredited have kept their knowledge and skills up to date, and fair because immigration solicitors would be treated no differently to solicitors facing reaccreditation in other fields. .

Matthew Davies, partner and training principal, Wilson and Co, London