Immigration solicitors acting under the fast-track system for asylum cases are engaging in 'unethical practices' and 'complicit exploitation of an unfair system', a damning report by an award-winning charity has warned.



The report by Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID), past winner of the Liberty/Justice human rights group of the year award, claims some solicitors are failing in their duties to clients.



It says lawyers are leaving appellants to go unrepresented even though they are entitled to legal representation. It also suggests that solicitors may be requesting payment on a private basis despite the client's eligibility for legal aid.



Under the fast-track scheme, all detainees are entitled to publicly funded representation at their initial asylum application and interview. However, according to Legal Services Commission (LSC) rules, legal aid for appeals against a Home Office decision will only be allowed if a solicitor assesses the chances of success to be more than 50%, unclear or borderline, using a 'merits test'.



While lawyers are under a duty to act in borderline cases, another LSC rule means they stand to lose their fast-track contract if they do not succeed in 40% of appeals - which the BID report suggests is causing them to drop clients with a legitimate right to legal aid at appeal stage, sometimes on the day of the appeal hearing.



The report also reveals that solicitors are failing to tell clients how to challenge a decision not to give public funding.



Law Society council member for immigration Wesley Gryk said that while many solicitors battle 'honourably' for fast-track clients, it was 'disheartening and disappointing' that some failed to provide an adequate service. He said this was reflected by the fact that there were very few applications to take clients out of the fast track - even where there is evidence of torture - and there are 'virtually no bail applications' for clients.



Alison Stanley, member of the Law Society's immigration law committee, added it was 'shocking' that solicitors who bid to be part of the fast-track scheme were now declining to act in appeals.



However, Matthew Davies, Immigration Law Practitioners Association executive committee member, said: 'The real issue is that the LSC should not be imposing a means test for fast-track appeals, where everything is weighted against the appellant.'



The report is based on a study of cases at Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre in March. An LSC spokesman said it has offered to meet BID, but had not received any complaints about the application of the merits test at the centre. He added that the 40% success rate is reasonable, because a case must have a 50% chance of success to qualify for public funding.



By Rachel Rothwell