Solicitors Regulation Authority urges all firms delivering asylum legal services to read new thematic review

Key findings

Engaging with clients: Validating claims

Generally we found that firms take a proactive approach to working with prospective clients to consider the merits of a potential asylum claim. This is both in terms of advising clients clearly on likely evidence that may be required to support any claim before it is made, and having their own measures in place to scrutinise the authenticity of client identities and evidence.

• On average, firms we visited rejected around 10 per cent of cases brought to them.
• All fee earners we spoke to took steps to verify a client's identity. This included asking every client to produce hard copy ID documents during initial face-to-face meetings.
• Most fee earners (23/25) typically saw and discussed evidence in support of a client's asylum claim during an initial meeting.
• All firms told us that it was important to examine and discuss any supporting evidence with the client in person. As an example, more than a third use external third-party experts or issuing authorities as additional verification of the authenticity of client evidence.

Engaging with clients: Ways of working

We found firms adopting a range of methods through which to communicate with and support their clients, which were generally sympathetic to the needs and circumstances of clients. The importance of meeting claimants face-to-face, explaining the asylum process clearly from the outset, and using technology to keep clients updated were widely acknowledged. Firms also need to explore the possibility of providing support for clients for those that do not speak English as a first language, or speak English at all.

• Just over half of the firms (13) we visited used professional interpreters and offered all clients the option to use one. Firms that did not use interpreters told us this was because they had a fee earner who spoke the same language as the client.
• Across all the firms we visited, we saw extensive use of WhatsApp messaging to communicate with, and update clients, or for clients to submit evidence to firms. While this offers a convenient and effective communication tool, we are concerned at how few firms had formal policies or approaches in place governing the use, storage or filing of data shared in this way, and how work can be properly supervised.

Of the files we reviewed, the majority of clients being provided with support on asylum issues would have been potentially eligible for Legal Aid. However, we found that many were paying for legal support privately.

• Most firms visited (18/25) reported providing asylum services to clients who had chosen to pay for it privately, even though they would have been eligible for Legal Aid. This was because the perception of Legal Aid-funded work was that it was of a lower quality.
• Anecdotally, some Legal Aid firms had no capacity and were operating waiting lists or having to turn clients away.

Supervision

Generally, we found all the firms we visited had structures in place to make sure that work was being monitored by a more experienced supervisor to check quality. It was clear that individual fee earners felt able to escalate individual cases and questions to a more senior colleague when needed. However:

• Most heads of department told us that they maintained close oversight of the asylum department's work and had knowledge of all the firm's asylum matters. It was difficult for us to verify this during our file reviews as often there was nothing on file to demonstrate that supervision had taken place.
• Only 62 per cent of files reviewed had evidence of supervision on them. We consider it good practice to evidence supervision has taken place on all files.
• Most supervision is undertaken face to face in the office without notes being taken. Regular file reviews as well as more formal file audits were the most common supervision methods used by firms.

Continuing competence

We found that the firms we visited generally understood their obligations to make sure their fee earners are staying up to date with their continuing competence obligations. During our visits and review of files we found no competence-related issues of concern. However, we did find inconsistent approaches to evidencing that development needs were being reviewed on a regular basis, or recording of training being subsequently undertaken.

• Most heads of department told us that fee earner competence was checked on a regular basis.
• Most individuals told us that 'on-the-job learning' was the most effective way to address learning and development needs.
• Heads of department told us that regular file reviews gave them a good opportunity to identify areas of learning and development.
• Although many asylum applicants might be vulnerable, might have to recount traumatic experiences or might be suffering from poor physical or mental health, we found very few firms provided their solicitors with training or support in dealing with such individuals.

Reporting concerns: safeguarding professional standards and ethics

• Most heads of department and fee earners working on asylum matters were aware of our reporting guidance and requirements. Yet few stated that they had in practice come across any behaviour which they believed could amount to a serious breach of our rules or standards.