header-logo header-logo

19 May 2020
Issue: 7887 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail

Immigration lawyers oppose fixed fees

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll