Anyhow, here is an email we received yesterday which falls into the “why on earth did we receive that?” category:
Just bumped onto your blog while looking for pro bono help with an immigration issue. I just had a daughter whose mom is not working.
The minister despite having this information, didn’t give a favourable ruling. I dont know much of the law but I think I have a chance fighting for my daughter’s right to be provided for emotionally and materially.
Do you think you can direct me to a firm that might be willing to take on my case?
cheers
[redacted]
Well, [redacted], based on your email it sounds like the mother of your newborn child (congratulations, by the way) has been denied residency. We have no expertise whatsoever in immigration law but think it sounds preposterous that a mother would be forced to leave a country in which her infant (and presumably breast-feeding) child is located. We’re sure some of our readers agree. If you want to offer [redacted] some help, email him here – spendry7@yahoo.com (based on our limited knowledge of this area of law, as soon as you appeal a decision you are given a bridging visa – this could buy the mother of your child some more time here – we also invite our readers to offer immigration law info in the comments below).
However, one thing we’re more certain about is that if you do appeal the ruling, and come up against an adversary in court from Minter Ellison acting on behalf of the Minister for Immigration, you’re in with a sporting chance. We received the following comments from an anonymous Minter Ellison spy last week:
Minters crashed onto an established panel of firms set up by the Government to do immigration work this year, touting its capability at a never to be repeated price. Well done marketing.
Now, a legal recruiter reflecting the panic of its boss is spilling the beans, desperate to find Sydney lawyers who know something about representing the immigration minister in Court to jump ship (pardon the pun). According to the recruiter, Minters represented they had a capability that did not exist, and now they’re desperate to pinch lawyers to make good their promises.
To make matters worse, their Court appearances in the immigration lists (lacking the smooth experience of the other solicitors) are beset with problems, which serve to confirm another rumour. They can’t afford to pay for barristers and are turning up with the diary of the one brave hardy soul within Minters who is prepared to argue in place of a barrister at a hearing.
The federal magistrates have cottoned on, so this is going to end in tears very soon unless Minters gets its hands on some lawyers. One magistrate refused to alter the date of the hearing because the brave hardy soul already had a pre-existing appointment (the court is selling tickets for that day!). So Minters are in a desperate bidding war until they find 2, then 3 brave hardy souls etc (the price will be right very soon). But given Minters’ already atrocious reputation for working its lawyers to the bone, these brave hardy (well paid) souls will have to carry a huge burden for Minters to make any money of what’s left to be paid to them.
Watch this space! This can’t have a good ending…
Nope, not a good ending at all! We asked Minters to confirm whether the firm is on the Dept of Immigration panel and, if so, how it is handling this work. We also sought clarification as to whether Minters has immigration law expertise. A firm spokesperson declined to comment.
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
———
UPDATE:
Funnily enough, it turns out that Minters is currently advertising a position on its website for “an experienced immigration lawyer based in Sydney”. The advert also confirms that Minters recently crashed onto the Dept of Immigtration panel:
Following our recent appointment to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship’s legal panel, we have an … opportunity for an experienced immigration lawyer based in Sydney. Whilst you will be based in Sydney, you will work closely with the Canberra immigration law team.
…Minter Ellison staff enjoy challenging and interesting work in a team focused environment where quality work is recognised and rewarded.
But in our opinion, Minter Ellison staff don’t enjoy decent remuneration. Yes, the work will be very challenging, but if the firm has a questionable level of expertise in immigration law generally, how on earth can it be in a position to recognise “quality” immigration work, let alone reward it? On that, read “pat on the back” into the word “reward”, rather than “an extra few grand in the bank”. We’re serious about this. EXERCISE CAUTION IN APPLYING FOR THIS JOB.
Loading...
We need the ones that came across the USA lines ILLegally, to be took back and come back the Illegally way. Stop fighting The America way .
Minties will do alright if they poach any disaffected lawyers from what’s left (if anything) of the DLA Piper government practice.
When I last had anything to do with frilly frocks as an in-house in 2005-06, a friend working there would regularly do the appearance work on behalf of the Minister in the FMC and FC.
Surely DLA have managed to retain the work, however things might not be so frilly these days for the DLA government panel.
Happy to read salacious stories of office affairs – but only if they involve inappropriate behaviour by people which would tend to make you question their judgement more generally or could have a negative impact on the firm they work for.
Eg an affair between a senior partner and a law student working at the same firm appears to be rather inappropriate, given that the partner is likely to be able to influence graduate recruitment and is in a postion of power. It would lead me to question the judgement of such a senior lawyer and could have a negative impact on his firm’s reputation. Therefore, I would be happy to read about it.
However, a “run of the mill” affair between a lawyer and someone else who they do not work with/potentially have power over or which couldn’t have disasterous results for the firm isn’t news worthy.
If the ‘brave hardy soul’ appeared before a certain federal magistrate (and given the spy must be from one of the ‘established panel of firms’, he/she would be well-acquainted with said certain federal magistrate) and sought to alter a hearing date, well then, I would applaud him/her.
@anon2 – you are bang on. DLA is off the panel and some of their immigration lawyers are disaffected to say the least. Open the poaching season.
Hey Disco, re your ‘bang on’ remark, check out this government website to see who’s doing the work
https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=public.SON.view&SONUUID=3F5F5A68-BE4D-118A-E54AC8EAF27503D0
Either do some research to get your facts right or stop banging your head at the disco.
Open the poaching season – ON YOUR BRAIN!
Who cares if Minties can run these migration matters without having to outsource an army of barristers and solicitors. In the end, the Minister is up against refugees, who are usually unrepresented, need interpreters and don’t understand our laws or legal system.
Everyone who’s been there would know the FMC operates differently to the other Courts and if their appearances aren’t smooth initially, I’m sure they’ll learn quickly after a few run-ins with FM mentioned at Anon #3.
This piece sounds like the workings of some spiteful Clutz or Blakes lawyer.
* not refugees but people seeking refugee status
@Anon#3
But isn’t the ACT based Frilly Frocks the new ACT office of HWL? Or was that just the govt lawyers? I need to go back and re-read my FS articles and comments. I may be wrong but I’m sure I saw the reference recently.
What say you FS HQ?
Dear frilly frocks, you poor confused soul – you have your extremities in too many pies, and you’re starting to sound like a confused wombat who has just woken from a deep sleep and is unable to work out why his (I assume you’re a bloke) head is stuck in the tunnel. Best not read anymore FS, and start obsessing on the billable work on your desk and when your safe little environment starts to globalise
C’mon Minties! Don’t listen to anyone. You can do it. There isnt any real law involved so you don’t need barristers. Immigration are just having themselves on, and on a given day you can persuade a given magistrate of just about anything. So have a go…
I’m completely outraged and distressed at these concerning revelations regarding Minter Ellison!
Hoxton – WHY?
Business demands that you don’t form a team until you have work. But if you don’t have the (right) team, then you don’t get the work to start with. It’s a classic Catch-22, as they say. Solution? Just say you have the team, at bargain basement prices. Easy. Just make sure the Indian call centre is ready to outsource to.