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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll