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)
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 6:58 pm
Seems like a spectacular own goal from the authorities in the UK. The Indian market is far more lucrative for western firms than the UK is for a handful of (already privileged) Indian graduates; yet stupid restrictions like this will only add vigour to the protectionist arguments raised by Indian lawyers in keeping western firms out of India. It was the west that wanted the WTO, globalisation and all the other wonderful benefits of that movement, not countries like India. The west gives India industrial mechanisation with resulting redundancies, not to mention the joys of McDonalds, Starbucks and Fox TV but then complains when globalisation (arguably) results in well qualified Indians "stealing jobs". Also, why this particular focus on India in the first place in this thread as being the real non-EU threat to legal jobs? There are (and have been, for decades) far more Aussies and South Africans in the British legal sector than there are Indians yet I don't see the presence of those nationals being criticised by the Brits as a threat to domestic legal jobs. Strange, that...
Oh, and this little (Indian) Piggy went to Oxbridge, too, but didn't think that his First gave him any sense of job entitlement. Grow up.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 7:29 pm
If you want to call yourself an international firm then you have to be prepared to hire internationally. It only makes good business sense to employ trainees who come from markets which the firm wishes to enter into. You are also forgetting the international work of law firms allow them to expand and to hire more trainees every year. The international hires can be said to be creating more jobs for UK graduates. That said, a large percentage of hires are still UK graduates so if you got your oxbridge 2:1 and still did not get the job, please ask yourself why that is so instead of criticising hiring policy regarding internationals. I'm sure that NR has recruited many other UK graduates from not so prestigious universities. Just be glad that Links gave you a job and don't look at things in such a myopic way. It dilutes the wonderful impression people have of oxbridge graduates.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Aug-2010 8:48 pm
Isn't it simply economics?
Norton Rose isn't going to pay Indian trainees any more than they pay those of UK origin so as with all employers they hope to get more for the same outlay - i.e. a more talented worker. With plumbers and tradesmen the "more for less" phenomenon drives down the earnings of locals directly because the newcomers compete for the available work. With trainees for professional places it is indirect in operation but ultimately locals have to take less well paying jobs so their earnings are lowered.
It seems to me that there is actually no shortage of law graduates of UK origin many of whom are extremely bright. But if even brighter law graduates from elsewhere compete for training contracts then UK graduates will be bumped down the hierarchy.
The Economist newspaper in June had an article that mentioned Ritu Solanki an English law graduate who was working in Gurgaon just outside Delhi billing about 12% of what someone of her seniority would bill in the UK and one supposes being paid 12% of what she would be paid in the UK. So we can have a market in talent in which the really bright, no matter where they originate, work for City firms and the not so talented work in outsourced jobs in sub-continent.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Aug-2010 0:06 am
English lawyers are lazy, whining sods by and large.
Hard working indians, aussies, kiwis and americans are needed to keep the big firms ticking over.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Aug-2010 5:00 am
Michael – lets not forget that this kind of protectionist attitude lead to the great depression. Based on some of your comments, I find it quiet surprising that you got a job in the city, let alone at Linklaters, which I know has both a diverse work-force (based nationality) and is heavily committed on being global.
Let us not kid ourselves; these firms are successful because they are all perceived to be global and not local. It is this distinct competitive advantage which attracts clients from all over the world. You will not be doing the best global deals without being committed to a business community which is global by nature. Attracting talent from all around the world is just one of the ways a law firm shows such commitment.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Justin Bieber | 17-Aug-2010 9:51 am
So you want to be an international law firm?
You have to be international in your outlook and your strategy as well. To call yourself an international law firm by having offices abroad and working on deals involving multinational clients does not necessarily make one an international law firm.
You don't think NR would hire English grads if they could? But you only need so many grads to serve the limited size of the UK market. In India, there is a virtual treasure trove of deals that are just waiting to be mined. Deals which involve INDIAN law and accordingly, would necessitate a need for Indian lawyers or lawyers qualified in Indian law. In addition to deals, there are people who might have been holding back due to what they perceive as the lack of sophistication in the Indian legal market (there are quality law firms that will rival the best firms of the UK in terms of quality of work, but there are not too many of them and they can only serve so many clients at any given time, given their size). These would be attractive to firms like NR as well.
So, if you wish to do something constructive rather than wallow in self-pity, then I suggest that you enroll in Indian law schools. Therefore, when NR comes down to National Law School of India for recruitment, you can get in the queue, just like everybody else and land a place in some magic circle firm.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
a | 17-Aug-2010 9:52 am
Dear MB,
Sorry to disappoint you ... but am gathering the reason NR rejected is you is your utter lack of knowledge beyond your little oxbridge bubble.
Btw ... u may be proud to be at links ... but i might tell you a little something about the UK hiring scene you dont know : NR hired from india for the first time in 2008. Linklaters on the other hand has hired 4-8 indian trainees every year since 2000.
I am guessing your insular pea sized brain and lack of reading is what got you rejected in the first place honey.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Antipodean Associate | 17-Aug-2010 11:05 am
The decision to impose the cap is unjustifiable from a policy perspective. It has been done because the government wants to be seen to do something and non-EU migration is the only migration that it can actually control.
It is a requirement (of the Tier 1 or Highly Skilled visa at least) that the applicant earn more than £40,000 p.a., which means that applicants only qualify for a visa if they'll be paying the higher 40% tax rate. Applicants can have no recourse to public funds, so the applicant takes all the risk of finding and maintaining employment - if they can't they have to support themselves and won't be able to renew their visa.
From the country's perspective, these visas enable UK businesses to draw on a pool of talented workers that have cost the country nothing in terms of education, will pay tax at the highest rate and will not be a drain on public resources.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Aug-2010 11:13 am
@ a: love it!
'oxbridge' means sod all except: having the innate ability to memorise and regurgitate things at exams, having an overly priveleged background (yes daddys money is good for something) and having a real lack of understanding, empathy and compassion for the REAL WORLD... get a life... theres more to life than saying my firms better than yours and definately more to life than being jealous of others who actually had to work hard to get where they are... so glad i gave up law! Enjoy your bickering :-)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Aug-2010 1:43 pm
@ M. Burbridge:
Depending on a large number of factors including:
- your school
- your subjects at A-Level
- how pushy, well connected and wealthy your parents are and which universities they went to
- your Oxbridge college
- your subject at university
- how hard you worked
- how close you were to a First
you could have an IQ anywhere from 115 to 190.
Merely saying '2.1 from Oxbridge' tells very little about your intellectual ability, and even less about your creativity, originality, interpersonal skills, commercial awareness and drive.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment