header-logo header-logo

Immigration lawyers oppose fixed fees

19 May 2020
Issue: 7887 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail
Immigration lawyers have accused the government of using coronavirus to ‘rush through’ fee cuts when practitioners can least afford it

Fixed fees for asylum and immigration work are due to be introduced on 8 June, under the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020, which were laid this week. This is a temporary measure for one year.

According to the Immigrational Legal Practitioners Association (ILPA), however, ‘the majority of files will exceed the new fixed fee and will therefore lose out financially as a result of this change’. A fee of £627 will be paid for work that would currently attract fees of £700, £1,000, £1,500 and £1,800.

The rates are more generous for lower value cases (for example, a £227 fee would rise to £627).

In a statement this week, ILPA said: ‘It is important to be clear, these changes that are being rolled out on an urgent basis, purportedly due to COVID-19, are not actually related to the pandemic at all.

‘We understand that the urgency is being driven by HMCTS’ desire to have everyone working within the new digital process, however we do not think that this should have been the top priority here, and the overriding desire to rush out that process is having a serious and negative impact on the sector.’

ILPA argued that proper consultation has not taken place, and it should have been able to complete the discussions it was having with the Ministry of Justice about fee structures before any change was made. In the meantime, hourly rates should be paid, ILPA said.

Bar Council chair Amanda Pinto QC said: ‘The new fee structure will result in immigration practitioners continuing to be underpaid for their work. These measures ought not to be implemented.’

However, an MoJ spokesperson said: ‘The new, increased fee structure has been under consideration for some time and reflects the digitalisation of the tribunal system, which has allowed justice to continue to be done during the coronavirus pandemic.

‘There will be a full consultation on these fee changes before they are finalised next year.’

 

Issue: 7887 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll