New UK visa rules kill job offers for Indian lawyers

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.

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.

This article was first published in the UK’s The Lawyer magazine.

Comments

Anonymous guest 17 Aug 2010, 03:38
+0 -0
This is great news. At least the government can officially take notice of the effect of denying foreign law firms entry into India
Anonymous guest 17 Aug 2010, 03:53
+0 -1
This crisis has occurred because millions of illegal pakistani and bangladeshi immigrants have flooded the UK. pakistanis will soon outnumber indians in the uk. The India -EU FTA could solve the problem, but India has to allow UK lawyers.
Anonymous guest 17 Aug 2010, 03:59
+0 -0
The moot question is: do UK law firms need the Indian market more, or Indian law school grads. With opportunities (and pay) in the top Indian firms no less than their foreign peers, I guess the British have more reasons to lose out. The govt. should be in no hurry to open the legal sector.
Anonymous guest 17 Aug 2010, 15:39
+0 -0
Just read the terms of the restrictions properly instead of gossip provided by one student of the National Law School. Everyone knows who this person is since there's only one NLS grad of 2010-batch who's got a Norton contract. Just open your eyes and READ about the new restrictions. Everyone who can get a letter of sponsorship and docs in order, which UK Firms provide when they are calling someone for a job, is allowed in and is NOT covered by the cap.
Anonymous guest 17 Aug 2010, 16:21
+0 -0
@2 : You are spot on - the Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants have caused this reaction. At one level, it is understandable. With trainee retention rates already so low, this is not good news for Indian trainees in UK firms.
Anonymous guest 17 Aug 2010, 16:21
+1 -0
@3: "With opportunities (and pay) in the top Indian firms no less than their foreign peers"

bulls****. UK firms pay far more and give weekends off. usually work ends at 7. Indian firms make people work on saturdays and often sundays and work often ends at 10 pm to 2 am. the employee benefits are also superior.
Anonymous guest 17 Aug 2010, 16:33
+0 -1
@6 : Well pay had better be more in UK firms, London is about 6 times more expensive than a city like Mumbai. As far as weekends etc are concerned, yes Indian firms do make you work harder, but it is better than sitting idle and stapling papers which is what most trainees in most UK firms do. And a bit of hard work never hurt anyone.And btw, there are a number of Indian firms which actually have decent work hours.
Anonymous guest 17 Aug 2010, 18:08
+0 -0
@7: Considering the kind of 'life' people lead in Mumbai (hanging out of local trains to get to work, living in prison cell like houses looking out onto the slums and paying through your nose for that, getting 'almost run over' by traffic everyday, begging the domestic help for their merciful attendance etc etc) I would think the Mumbai firms should pay about 6 times more.
Anonymous guest 17 Aug 2010, 20:39
+0 -0
LI could you pls report on the placements of the law school of IIT in west bengal? do UK firms recruit from there? how is the law school in terms of faculty, library student life etc? thx.
Anonymous guest 17 Aug 2010, 23:59
+0 -0
The title of this article is incredibly misleading, if not incorrect all together.

NO job offer is getting killed. If a person is denied a visa, it just means this person would have to apply at a later time. This news is being blown up unnecessarily.

I request whoever has written this to get their head examined and also correct the title while they are at it.
Anonymous guest 18 Aug 2010, 00:15
+1 -0
@10 : since you are so smart why dont you look at the byline. the UK website The Lawyer reported it.
@4 : the said nls grad has already got his work visa. There is another NUJS grad who was slated to join.
Anonymous guest 18 Aug 2010, 00:55
+0 -0
@11 The article in The Lawyer was titled "Norton Rose faces hiring battle in wake of new Govt visa quota". Look it up. Bozo.
Anonymous guest 18 Aug 2010, 20:01
+0 -0
East or West, India is the Best! No need to go abroad and unnecessarily unsettle your lives. All these firms will definitely come to India someday as they are desperate now. So, till then, lets just continue to focus on our work here and make our basics solid.
Anonymous guest 20 Aug 2010, 00:45
+0 -0
@3 your assertion that 'top Indian firms [pay] no less than their foreign peers' seems to be incorrect in longer run. An average top UK law firm pays around pound 37K for the first year, while in India the best someone can get is around 14 lakhs + bonus (usually 20%) so around 17 lakhs (approx). In mumbai if you lead a comfortable lifestyle you need to spend at least 30-40K pm, so after tax one usually has savings of around 9 lakhs pa. In london to live a comparable lifestyle one would need around 12K (for acco and food) around 1K for travel and another 4-5K for other costs so savings after tax would be pound 17-18K. Now if you want to convert the pound to Indian currency then savings pa it would be around 12-13 lakhs, which is comparable to the 9 lakhs pa savings for mumbai. However this comparison is true only for first year then the salary at the city law firms of UK increases geometrically, one estimate puts the salary in 3rd year at a top city law firm to be around pound 60K pa, no indian firm can come anywhere close to that mark even after deduction for living cost and tax.
Anonymous guest 20 Aug 2010, 00:57
+0 -0
#14 - must say a good shot at the numbers. Where things got a little misleading in your post is at the end. Yes the income slabs might shoot up in UK in year 3, if all goes well with your role in the firm, etc etc. What will usually happen is alongwith each step up in income levels, the standard of living has got to keep up. No longer will the 12k per annum be even close to meet your accom and food needs. You need a proper house now (bigger title, family, etc.) and you need to eat/drink out a lot more than what 1k a month could buy you. As they say, the treadmill starts gathering speed, and the escalation in the speed (of income) requires a proportionate escalation in your efforts and calories (read pounds) burnt...


From a NRI Bean counter
Anonymous guest 20 Aug 2010, 01:05
+0 -1
@14 and @15: screw the financials. I want my maid, cook, driver, presswala, car cleaner, doodhwala, et al. London / NY can't give me these luxuries at the cost I am used to in India.
Anonymous guest 20 Aug 2010, 06:19
+1 -0
@16: How would disguised unemployment survive without people like you. Excellent! Keep it up.
Anonymous guest 21 Aug 2010, 17:25
+0 -0
@ 15 - hi I am the #14 guy, you have picked an imp loophole in my argument, but the cost escalation over a period would also be there in Mumbai as it is in London and thus the difference in savings would also increase if not geometrically then may be arithmetically, but the difference would nonetheless be substantial.
Anonymous guest 22 Aug 2010, 19:10
+0 -0
Not everyone joins their respective jobs keeping in mind salary alone. It is of course a very important criteria, but there are many others which might trump it.

I know many who left tcs to be in India close to family. Some just don't want to leave a joint family setup or ailing aging parents.

There is also the issue of work life balance, and I hope most of you who are about to choose their jobs realise how important it is. A weekend to yourself can actually provide you with a longer career, so many folks burn out if they are made to work every day of the week.

I really enjoyed the candour of #16 - Some people can't do without certain luxuries or even the warmer weather.

Why are we trying to rank or create a hierarchy between these jobs? The work profile and the returns are so different. It is like comparing apples and pears.
Anonymous guest 23 Aug 2010, 18:27
+1 -0
@16: Screw that nonsense. I want running water, 24x7 electricity, houses that don't require some form of repair or the other every day, cleanliness, big green parks to get some fresh air in, decent work-life balance, a professional work environment et al. Delhi / Mumbai can't give us these BASICS at ANY cost. Luxuries can come later...
Anonymous guest 29 Aug 2010, 01:39
+0 -0
this is yet another example of supreme hypocrisy and they call us 'protectionist'! Manu sanghvi take note!