header-logo header-logo

IMMIGRATION OVERHAUL

29 November 2007
Issue: 7299 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail

In brief

Employers who unwittingly hire illegal workers could face a fine of up to £10,000 for each illegal worker found at a business, the government has announced. When the new rules are introduced in February next year, employers found to have knowingly hired illegal workers could incur an unlimited fine and be sent to prison. Other measures to be introduced in the next year include an Australian-style points-based system which will allot foreign workers a grade and make it easier (or harder) for them to work here, depending on their skillset.

Issue: 7299 / Categories: Legal News , 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 dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
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
back-to-top-scroll