Report comment

TO Anony Mous-e23 May 2016 02:50 pm

My CAT has just gobbled up her salmon FELIX packet & states the following (in response to your ‘mousey’ opinion):

You can have such an opinion - after all - legal aid money has allowed you to stay in a job I suspect. Try working in the private sector and you will actually learn that luxuries and privileges you enjoyed under legal aid are not available to private practices.

Therefore you can afford the luxury of running around shouting you are the best (which you are probably not). Please do stay in your nice office (wherever that is) and stick your Equality & Diversity Policy at home and use it as wallpaper.

There are several groups ‘selling’ their wares in the immigration ‘bazaar’ or advising on immigration issues - including Solicitors (who have done law degrees, LPC. Training Contracts, PSC and then mandatory CPD’s), Solicitors who have qualified by doing the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test (or whatever it’s called these days), Registered European Lawyers, Registered Foreign Lawyers. Solicitors who did not study law at British universities, but then later did a transfer over into the legal profession, Non-practicing Barristers, Barristers called to the Bar, Para-legals (under supervision), unregulated individuals, individuals or companies that are allowed to provide such services, but who are ‘exempt’ from the red-tape, OISC practitioners (who can set up ‘shop’ after doing just few weeks training some of whom may not have any prior legal background), but also NP Barristers and Law graduates (with no further vocational training) – but who do so under Supervision of Solicitors and then such persons who do not need to work under Supervision of Solicitors but can set up as OISC practitioners, individuals who are just ‘passing-off’ the names of established firms and many more types of people including Charities, staff employed at the Home Office who may or may not be Solicitors/Barristers. There is a new fashion (for the last 2 years) whereby individuals have also set themselves up as merely ‘introducers’ to immigration practitioners and take a ‘fee’ for this service from clients/consumers, private individuals who represent themselves after ‘shopping’ around for legal advice – the list is endless – I can still think of a few more ‘types’ but there is no room here to describe.
Immigration is an extremely complex, fast-moving and heavily scrutinised area of law – it also receives extraordinary attention from politicians, journalists, right-wing groups etcetera. There are certainly some top ‘guns’ at the Immigration Bar – some well known established Chambers with brilliant Barristers who live, breathe and practice law. Just look at some of the top names at 12 Old Square and similar places. Their work is very inspirational and motivational. That is also a ‘fact’.

BME are disproportionately I suspect concentrated in this area of law – because they never had opening anywhere else. And even if that is not one of the significant reasons – the other is they are more likely to effectively represent their clientele due to their command of ‘other’ languages. Therefore they in many ways are able to provide a more cost effective service without the need of an interpreter. You don’t need a sophisticated command of English to complete basic Home Office applications at all. What you do need is ‘common-sense’ and attention to detail and an understanding of the Rules. For that, a law degree helps, but the most sophisticated presentation will not help you if the law has been applied incorrectly or the application does not meet the basic criteria of the Rules. No qualification or legal training or accreditation will help.

As you move into complex Home Office applications, Appeals, Judicial Review then more sophisticated knowledge of law is certainly required and busy High Street Solicitors Practices may consider it makes commercial sense to give work out to Barristers and ‘employ’ them to do the hearings because that’s what they do and because they do that regularly they will handle the case and grasp it quicker than someone who does not regularly go to Court etcetera. Barristers play an important role in Higher Court applications. Many Barristers who work in the Higher Courts do deliver an exceptional standard of work. Barristers are required in many instances to handle appeals at the lower Tribunals and hearings as it is time-consuming work and logistically not commercial sense to keep Solicitors ‘out of the office’ per se for most of the week. Also they have more training on advocacy per se so it makes sense to send them to Court.
There is no easy answer to this but I was shocked at this report as I would have expected a reasoned conclusion and more divergent thinking about the question of why standards have dropped rather than a convergent one. Rather than point the blame at Immigration Solicitors carte blanche and defame their work – it would have made more sense to investigate the wider picture – i.e. a wide ranger of providers of immigration services.
I am comfortable with the thought that you do not need any particular qualification per se to prove you can offer good standard of service. It really is up to the ‘individual’ and their approach. A good standard of English definitely helps.

I have always considered the Bar to be a ‘’voice’’ for not only the public, but also to stand up for the rights of other lawyers in this field. This Report is a poor attempt at ‘Divide and Rule’. I would rather share my delicious FELIX salmon packet with a junior barrister at the immigration bar than share it with you – even if you paid me ten-fold.
Also I challenge you to reveal your real name and then tell me in your tenure as an accredited Solicitor how many precedents have you managed to set in Immigration law. I am confident that I can find someone ‘ethnic’ from the ‘High-Street’ who can demonstrate far more success than you have had. If you win then I will stop eating FELIX and swtich to WHISKAS.