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)
JK | 16-Aug-2010 4:30 pm
@ MB.
Thanks for clearing this up.
Norton Rose, what pr** eh? I take it from your post that Links don't have any Indian or other trainees in London because of their concern for recruiting purely from the domestic labour market? Or else you wouldn't be there, right?At last, an international law firm that puts nation first.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 4:36 pm
After going through all comments it is clear that if any graduate from Oxbridge having 2.1 thinks i can replace an Indian or any other overseas by the qualification mentioned then he or she is wrong if there are Indian companies buying Uk companies then your 2.1 from oxbridge is of not much use what is important is knowledge of both law and that type of candidate will be selected
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 4:38 pm
I agree with Anonymous (3:57pm). As an Oxford graduate I am proud of my University and feel that there is a degree of unease in the UK whenever 'Oxbridge' is mentioned.
I understand its traditional image but Oxford has tried hard to increase diversity amongst its student body. Ironically, graduates may then find it difficult to find a job. As a postgraduate entering law, I found it equally as challenging and had my fair share of rejections but I certainly do not believe that I deserved to be given a training contract simply due to the name of my University. Equally I expected to be treated no differently from overseas applicants.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
a a hafezi | 16-Aug-2010 4:59 pm
i am indian by birth.what the hell is going on.why are lawfirms recruting in india.where will the next generationof parners come for.?
Outsourcing is a dangerous developmnt and will eventually impact on laboure force as a whole.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 5:04 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."
So it's who you know, rather than what you know? As if that would EVER happen in law...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 5:14 pm
Re Oxbridge & Michel Burbridge.
Seems like a bit of jealousy in the comments by the others.
Michel, those others will forever resent you; keep mindful of that.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
blah | 16-Aug-2010 5:17 pm
If Norton Rose likes Indian lawyers so much, maybe they can open an office in India.
Oh, wait, India won't let them. I guess free trade is good for some but not for others. I suppose, according to the free traders, if India won't open up it's own protectionistic legal market, the UK should help Indian lawyers get a leg up here as well.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gottenballsmuchh? | 16-Aug-2010 5:39 pm
Scared of a little competition?
Ha ha!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 6:01 pm
I don't buy these arguments about firms being allowed to source talent from wherever they want, whenever they want.
Nobody seems to be taking into account that the logical outcome of continuously solving skills shortages by buying in your talent is the death of domestic talent.
Firms need to bite the bullet and pay domestically talented solicitors to qualify in a foreign legal system, if this is what they want to achieve.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Proud to be a non-EU migrant. | 16-Aug-2010 6:49 pm
So, this is what people of this fair country REALLY think of foreign workers .. ..
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment