City lawyers protest Government's proposed cap on immigration
The City has hit out at Government proposals to impose a cap on UK immigration, saying that the move could damage competitiveness of international law firms. The plans, which would come into effect in April 2011, have been criticised by law firms and the Law Society for reducing the freedom to move lawyers into the UK from international offices.
September 01, 2010 at 02:59 AM
2 minute read
Law Society lobbies on City's behalf over new immigration regime
The City has hit out at Government proposals to impose a cap on UK immigration, saying that the move could damage competitiveness of international law firms.
The plans, which would come into effect in April 2011, have been criticised by law firms and the Law Society for reducing the freedom to move lawyers into the UK from international offices.
The Law Society is currently canvassing firms and is set to make contributions to two ongoing consultations by the Home Office and the UK Border Agency's migration advisory committee (MAC) on the proposals, which are both due to close in September.
Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson (pictured) said: "Just when we are pulling ourselves out of a crippling recession, imposing this cap now will strangle City law firms and in turn hit the businesses they act for. By imposing a cap, there is a mistaken assumption that there will be lawyers of equal expertise in the UK and EU, but it is often the knowledge of a particular overseas jurisdiction which is of value to a firm."
The Law Society has pointed out the risks of severing links with the world's largest economies, including China and India, and argued that migrant lawyers make a significant contribution to the UK economy.
Several law firms are especially concerned about proposals to cap inter-company transfers, which would mean they would have to apply on a case-by-case basis to relocate lawyers within the business as opposed to a current allocated number of transfers.
Baker & McKenzie business immigration specialist lawyer Tony Haque said: "This would mean a loss of certainty for law firms to be able to bring in specialists from other offices. The Government made an election promise to reduce immigration and, while business immigration is not the main problem, it is focusing on this area because it is easiest to reduce."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJones Day, BCLP & Other Major Firms Boost European Teams with Key Partner Hires
4 minute read$13.8 Billion Magomedov Claim Thrown Out by UK High Court
Ropes & Gray, Mori Hamada, Nishimura & Asahi Act on Bain Capital’s $634M Aircraft Business Acquisition in Japan
Trending Stories
- 1More Litigation Coming? Insulin MDL Gets Boost from FTC Report
- 2Judge Spends 3 Hours Explaining His Decision
- 3Morgan Lewis Closes Shenzhen Office Less Than 2 Years After Launch
- 4On The Move: Freeman Mathis & Gary Adds Florida Partners, Employment Pro Joins Jackson Lewis
- 5New Trouble for Allstate: National Class Action Targets Insurer
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250