Norton Rose faces hiring battle in wake of new Govt visa quota
The Government’s new points-based work permit scheme hinders law firms from hiring overseas talent
Norton Rose has failed to secure a work permit for one of its future trainees and has had to turn away a handful of Indian interns as the legal sector continues to grapple with the UK Border Agency’s (UKBA) points-based work permit system.
The Government’s controversial decision to introduce a temporary cap on the number of non-EU migrants entering the UK is likely to impact on all international firms, potentially preventing them from making lateral hires from non-EU markets or moving lawyers from overseas offices to London.
The temporary cap was announced by the coalition on 29 June and came into force on 19 July. Under the new rules firms have had individual quotas slammed on them based on the number of work permits issued to them between July 2009 and March 2010. Firms that secured six permits during that period have had their allocation of so-called Tier 2 visas, which cover trainee recruitment and lateral hires, slashed by 15 per cent.
The cap also covers existing employees whose work permits are about to expire, but excludes partners and some associates who can enter the UK under a Tier 1 visa. These are only awarded to individuals who satisfy stringent rules on minimum age, savings and earnings.
However, Tier 1 visas are covered by a temporary quota of 600 work permits per month for embassies throughout the world.
Interns meanwhile are eligible for a Tier 5 visa and although not subject to a cap Norton Rose did not manage to secure these visas in time for its interns to start their placements. The interns are therefore expected to start their work experience later this year.
Human resources departments have expressed concerns about the cap, which is expected to become a permanent feature. In recent years a growing number of firms, including Herbert Smith, Linklaters, SJ Berwin and Norton Rose, have developed strong links with Indian universities and have regularly run recruitment trips there to cherry-pick the best graduates.
One graduate recruitment partner told The Lawyer: “The cap is going to be an issue for many law firms. The reason we go to places such as India and Australia is because they operate a common law system, so it’s not the same as hiring lawyers from France or Germany, which are civil law jurisdictions.”
Norton Rose is now in the process of reapplying for the trainee’s work permit, but it is also exploring the possibility of placing them with an overseas office. The trainee, who is an Indian national, was due to join Norton Rose this month.
The Law Society is gathering feedback from law firms and planning to make submissions to both the UKBA and the Migratory Advisory Committee, which are running consultations prior to the introduction of permanent caps.
Norton Rose was not prepared to comment.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |
Readers' comments (60)
CC | 16-Aug-2010 9:50 am
My firm is not desperate in hiring indian trainees. We prefer hiring uk uni grads.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michel Burbridge | 16-Aug-2010 9:55 am
I am a british graduate from oxbridge and my application ( ive got a 2.1 btw) was turned down for a training contract at Norton Rose. They prefer to take Indian trainees these days. Perhaps Norton rose should relocate to India.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 10:14 am
Good! They can hire from among the many talented UK graduates who keep getting turned down in favour of "overseas talent".
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 10:33 am
@ Michel Burbridge - why do you think that Norton Rose owes you a training contract, just because you got a 2.1 from 'Oxbridge'?
There are lots of people who get 2.1s (and better) from 'Oxbridge', and from UCL, LSE and Imperial.
The world does not owe you a living. And 'Oxbridge' is not the be all and end all.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 10:35 am
"I am a british graduate from oxbridge...ive got a 2.1 btw". A gigantic sense of entitlement or what ? Dude, you need a better interview technique...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon C | 16-Aug-2010 10:35 am
The change in rules will effect all firms which hire from outside the EU. It is a new reality. I don't see how one application from Norton Rose makes them a special case.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Soor Grapis | 16-Aug-2010 10:36 am
It takes real arrogance to believe that any firm has to take you just because you are a 2:1 from Oxbridge.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 11:48 am
To be fair, it would be easier to agree with the comments ridiculing the guy with a 2:1 from Oxbridge if, when one browses the lists of Partners at top firms and Silks at top Chambers, one didn't find that virtually all of them graduated from Oxford or Cambridge.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
tom | 16-Aug-2010 11:51 am
Michel Burbridge - maybe it was the poor standard of your written English?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 12:21 pm
I think the MB Oxbridge post may have been a wind up to spur comments from others. Most Oxbridge graduates will be excellent but of course some will come across as disappointing. Having graduates from around the globe with the increasingly international aspect to much of the legal work is vital for UK firms in maintaining their status as world leaders in legal services. Arbitrary caps may well be harmful.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 12:24 pm
I cannot help but notice the unfairness of the rules applying only to non EU skilled workers. Reminds me of Thatcher's objections to a boat full of Vietnamese refugees vis -a- vis Polish unskilled immigrants.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michel Burbridge | 16-Aug-2010 12:37 pm
I forgot to mention I got accepted at Linklaters. May be Norton Rose should be called Norton Rose & Singh. It pays of course to be at Oxbridge :) Im proud to be at Links.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 12:43 pm
Surely Norton Rose could have found trainees from the resident labour market. Why were they applying for work permits for non EU nationals when there are so many law graduates looking for work?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 12:57 pm
If Mich[a]el Burbridge really is the name of the author of the comment above, then that's a nice own goal, although probably not particularly detrimental. Well played.
It certainly isn't as bad as the guy who offered advice on the Legal Week career clinic a couple of years back by saying "I got a training contract with Slaughters this year, and I lied on my application. Said I got 5 A's when I only got [XY grades]". That was quite special.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 1:52 pm
A bit of a strange attitude. Of course one may also question how many of the English qualified lawyers are working in other countries? Should they all come back and practice only in England & Wales?
if you wish your business to be a bit international and you know your revenue is going to come from certain quarters of the world, perhaps it makes sense to build a team from those quarters of the world. Being English does not automatically entitle you to work anywhere in the world in much the same way as being a non-European does not entitle one to work in England.
Just a thought.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nonny | 16-Aug-2010 1:58 pm
Michael Burbridge - you wouldn't mind working abroad involving Indian clients, would you?
However you do mind sitting next to an Indian lawyer doing the same as what you are doing in the office.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 3:47 pm
Michael Burbridge - Get a life.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 3:53 pm
I am under the impression that for non-EU nationals to work in the UK they need to have skills that are in short supply/cannot be met in the UK. If they are qualified in Indian law and will work on Indian law transactions from the UK then a work permit would surely be given. If they are to work on English law transactions from the UK then there are lots of graduates from the UK ready and willing to do this work. The position is largely the same across the world. An English qualified solicitor doesn't expect to be able to work on Indian law transactions in India.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 3:57 pm
It seems to me that MB's comment has been taken out of context and deliberately misconstrued. The point he mas making was that the impact of overseas hires is to reduce the number of openings available to ostensibly well qualified UK candidates. Or is someone now going to suggest that a candidate who has an Oxbridge 2.1 is not ostensibly (and I emphasise that word) well qualified ?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 4:06 pm
It makes sense for firms to hire from abroad,especially from places like India. In the end it provides a way of obtaining contacts with potential clients in emerging markets.
That overrides any application from an Oxbridge graduate.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment