Law Society president defends legal profession after ‘misguided’ criticism over exam cheating case

[ad_1]

SINGAPORE: Law Society president Adrian Tan has hit out at those who criticized the professional body for turning a blind eye to exam cheating, saying these commentators are “misguided”.

In a message published in the Law Gazette on Thursday (Apr 28), Mr Tan said the case involving the trainee lawyers who cheated in the Bar exams showed that “there are commentators who are quick to condemn lawyers, based on the conduct of non- lawyers”.

“They do so without understanding the background of events or waiting for matters to be resolved. They are in a rush to judge us, practicing lawyers, and to urge us to reflect on our own ethics.”

Mr Tan stressed that the six people who cheated have not been admitted to the Bar, which means they are not members of the Law Society and are not lawyers.

“One important prerequisite for admission (to the Bar) is for the Law Society to issue a special letter, called a Letter of Non-Objection. This letter states that the Law Society does not object to that person’s application to the Bar. The point of such a letter is to say that that applicant is a fit and proper person to be an advocate and solicitor,” he explained.

Addressing commentators who criticized the Law Society for “somehow turning a blind eye to cheating”, Mr Tan said: “These commentators are misguided. It is because these six persons cheated that the Law Society did not agree to admit them as advocates and solicitors. “

He also clarified the role of the Law Society, saying that the exams are not set by it, nor does it have any power to punish the six involved as they are not members.

UNFAIR TO TARGET LAW FIRMS

Those who criticized the law firms that gave training contracts to the six applicants have “failed to understand the sequence of events”, Mr Tan added.

Trainees apply to join law firms “long before” they take their Part B exams and they may finish their training contracts even before sitting for the papers, he explained.

They also take the exams as private individuals, “not under the auspices of any law firm”.

“There is no suggestion that any law firm gave a training contract to a trainee knowing that the trainee would later cheat in the Part B exam. It is unfair to target those law firms,” ​​Mr Tan wrote.

[ad_2]