Choosing a lawyer for a migration case

Most people in this market instruct an agent and call them a lawyer. The difference is not seniority; it is regulation, insurance and whose interests they act for.

What a regulated lawyer brings

• A regulator with a complaints procedure and disciplinary powers.
• Professional indemnity insurance, which is what makes negligence recoverable.
• A duty to you that survives their commercial interest in a particular outcome.
• Client account rules governing how your money is held.
• Legal privilege over your communications, in the jurisdictions that recognise it.

An unregulated adviser has none of those, which is not a reason never to use one — many are competent — but is the reason to know which you have engaged.

How to check

• Search the bar association or law society register of the jurisdiction, by the individual's name rather than the firm's.
• Confirm the practising certificate is current and check the disciplinary record where published.
• Ask which regulator they answer to and whether they carry indemnity insurance, and at what level.
• Establish whether they act for you or for the developer, the programme or the agent introducing you.

Choosing the right specialism

• Immigration law in the destination, not international law generally.
• Tax advice separately, and in both countries. An immigration lawyer is not a tax adviser and the good ones say so.
• Property conveyancing separately again, from someone instructed by you rather than recommended by the seller.
• Three specialists cost more than one generalist and are the difference between a plan and a hope.

The questions to ask at the first meeting

• How many of these cases have you handled in the last year, and what proportion succeeded?
• What would make you advise me not to proceed?
• Are you receiving any commission from anybody in connection with this?
• What is the fee, what does it cover, and what is charged separately?

An adviser who answers the second question with a real answer is worth engaging. One who cannot think of anything that would make them advise against proceeding is not an adviser.