SINGAPORE: Regulation Modern society president Adrian Tan has strike out at individuals who criticised the experienced entire body for turning a blind eye to test dishonest, declaring these commentators are “misguided”.
In a information published in the Law Gazette on Thursday (Apr 28), Mr Tan stated the case involving the trainee lawyers who cheated in the Bar examinations showed that “there are commentators who are swift to condemn legal professionals, dependent on the conduct of non-attorneys”.
“They do so without having comprehending the background of events or ready for issues to be fixed. They are in a hurry to choose us, practising legal professionals, and to urge us to replicate on our possess ethics.”
Mr Tan stressed that the six people today who cheated have not been admitted to the Bar, which means they are not users of the Regulation Society and are not legal professionals.
“1 crucial prerequisite for admission (to the Bar) is for the Legislation Culture to challenge a distinctive letter, referred to as a Letter of Non-Objection. This letter states that the Legislation Culture does not item to that person’s software to the Bar. The place of this kind of a letter is to say that that applicant is a healthy and correct human being to be an advocate and solicitor,” he stated.
Addressing commentators who criticised the Law Culture for “by some means turning a blind eye to dishonest”, Mr Tan reported: “These commentators are misguided. It is simply because these six folks cheated that the Legislation Society did not concur to acknowledge them as advocates and solicitors.”
He also clarified the job of the Legislation Society, indicating that the examinations are not set by it, nor does it have any ability to punish the six involved as they are not customers.
UNFAIR TO Concentrate on Law Firms
Those who criticised the legislation corporations that gave training contracts to the six candidates have “failed to realize the sequence of events”, Mr Tan extra.
Trainees utilize to join legislation corporations “long before” they consider their Component B exams and they may possibly complete their teaching contracts even in advance of sitting for the papers, he spelled out.
They also get the examinations as personal people today, “not under the auspices of any law firm”.
“There is no recommendation that any law company gave a teaching agreement to a trainee being aware of that the trainee would later cheat in the Portion B exam. It is unfair to concentrate on those people law companies,” Mr Tan wrote.
Resource website link