The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has shut down three law firms exposed for offering fake asylum claims for cash.
In a statement issued to The Epoch Times on Monday, the SRA said it has also suspended the practising certificates of each of the firms’ principal solicitors.
The regulatory body—which vowed last week to take “urgent action” over the unscrupulous lawyer claims—said it would continue to investigate issues raised following a Daily Mail investigation earlier this month.
The SRA named the closed firms: Rashid & Rashid in southwest London, Kingswright Solicitors in Birmingham, and Lincoln Lawrence in west London.
It has suspended the practising certificates of their principals, respectively Rashid Khan, Muhammad Ahmad, and Muhammad Hayat.
The firms are effectively prevented from practising, with the SRA taking possession of all documents and papers held by the firm and holding all client money.
Earlier this month, the Daily Mail reported how multiple solicitors agreed to help an undercover reporter, posing as an economic migrant, submit a phoney application in exchange for thousands of pounds.
One lawyer, who was secretly recorded, asked for £10,000 to invent a horrific backstory to use in the asylum application.
Shocked
The regulatory body also confirmed on Monday that it had issued an order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against VP Lingajothy, a CILEX member formerly of south London firm Duncan Ellis, meaning he cannot work for a law firm without the SRA’s permission.The SRA said Mr. Lingajothy worked as a manager and caseworker, handling immigration cases together with criminal and civil matters.
He “deliberately provided advice” to a Daily Mail reporter posing as a client, “which would mislead the Home Office when seeking to determine his prospective client’s claim for asylum due to the basis on which it would be put.”
The statement added: “Mr Lingajothy knew this to be the position as he explicitly outlined the backstory which would need to be told to firstly remove the prospective client from the small boats group and then to provide the strongest likelihood of this bogus claim for asylum being accepted. Mr Lingajothy’s conduct was dishonest.”
SRA Chair Anna Bradley said the organisation was in discussions with “other enforcement agencies” over the issues raised.
Mr. Chalk also called on the SRA to undertake a “targeted follow-up” to the thematic review of immigration work it conducted last year “as soon as possible.”
Ms. Bradley reported that, since the review was published, two solicitors have been struck off for failure to carry out their immigration duties properly.
Alongside the review, the SRA published guidance on immigration work and effective supervision.
The regulator will shortly begin “a wider inspection of the immigration sector, looking at compliance with our new guidance.”
Unlimited Fines
Alongside this, Ms. Bradley said the SRA would be “expanding and promoting the information on our rules and best practice we have available to law firms,” including new guidance that will take account of the issues raised by the Daily Mail investigation, as well as publishing new information, tailored to asylum seekers and interpreters, on the public-facing cross-regulator Legal Choices website.She renewed the SRA’s longstanding call for unlimited fining powers.
“As I am sure you will agree, due process must be followed and fairness for all involved is paramount. In our experience this can take time, sometimes too long,” wrote Ms. Bradley.
“This is important, because in an effective regulatory system the consequences for aberrant behaviour should flow quickly after the event, to deliver a suitable deterrent for others who may be involved in similar practises.”
While the “most serious examples of misconduct” should be referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), unlimited fining powers would “create that deterrent more quickly.”
Last year, the Ministry of Justice approved an increase in the SRA’s fining powers from £2,000 to £25,000, but the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill currently going through Parliament provides unlimited fines in economic crime cases.
“We would ask again that this power be given to the SRA in all cases of serious misconduct,” Ms. Bradley wrote.
“While individual solicitors should face the SDT for serious wrongdoing (and in appropriate cases forfeit their right to practise), that does not preclude the SRA from also fining them and their firm.
“This process could run in parallel with proceedings at the SDT and would deliver an obvious and immediate incentive for the proper running of the firm, a consequence for all partners of the firm and a clear motivation for the firm to ‘self-regulate’ or face the significant financial consequences.”
Ms. Bradley, who has also requested a meeting with the Lord Chancellor, said this approach would provide a “swifter deterrent” and change behaviour.
“However, in order to do so, the financial penalty must be much more significant than we can presently prescribe,” she said.
