Background
Ralitsa is a Solicitor at the London office. She joined the firm in January 2020 as a paralegal, having previously worked at the AIRE Centre where she undertook EU freedom of movement case work, specifically around aspects of deportation and entitlement to residence rights for vulnerable clients, mostly victims of domestic abuse and gender-based violence.
Ralitsa trained with Zubier Yazdani and Polly Glynn working on a range of complex and high-profile public and private law cases, gaining experience in trafficking, immigration detention and migrant support cases. Ralitsa has worked on a variety of Judicial Reviews, challenging a range of decisions by public bodies, such as failures to recognise clients as victims of trafficking, breaching their duties under Article 4 ECHR, failing to carry out adequate investigations as to whether someone has been trafficked and failing to provide victims with adequate support.
Ralitsa specialises in a mix of public law and civil claims, with a particular focus on how the law disproportionately disadvantages women. Her practice is rooted in a survivor-centred approach, advocating for systemic change that recognises and addresses the diverse experiences of all women, especially those who are most marginalised, including migrant women. Migrant women often face intersecting forms of discrimination and exclusion based on their gender, nationality, race, immigration status, and economic vulnerability.
Through her work, Ralitsa strives to hold public authorities accountable and challenge systemic injustices, ensuring that the law serves to protect and empower those most at risk.
Ralitsa holds a degree in law and a Master’s degree in Gender Studies and Law from SOAS, where she explored the complex intersections of gender, law, and power in depth.
She is fluent in Greek and Bulgarian.
Notable Cases
- COL v DPP [2022 EWHC 601 (Admin)]
A judicial review case against the Director of Public Prosecutions which examined whether the decision not to prosecute a UAE diplomat for offences related to modern slavery was lawful. The court concluded that the Director of Public Prosecutions had erred in law.
- MD and EH v SSHD
A Judicial Review in the High Court concerning the Home Office’s discriminatory policy on trafficking support payments