Do you have trust in the Singapore legal system?

[LITTLEREDDOT]

This is a cover-up.
Who are these lawyers that the government and judiciary are protecting?

Six trainee lawyers who cheated in 2020 Bar exam have their admissions to the profession delayed​

The six had mostly trained in big and renowned firms. PHOTO ILLUSTRATION: PEXELS

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

APR 18, 2022

SINGAPORE - Six trainee lawyers here had their applications to be called to the Bar adjourned after they cheated in the professional Bar examination in 2020 - including on a paper on ethics and professional responsibility.
In the spirit of "second chances", a High Court judge directed that the six not be named in the hope that they will not be prejudiced in the long run.
"In a profession in which every member must be like Caesar's wife - beyond reproach - dishonesty is a big problem. But it would also be harsh to have one's professional career ended before it has even begun," said Justice Choo Han Teck.
The six had mostly trained in big and renowned firms. Five of them are currently working as legal executives.
Five, who had shared answers in six papers through WhatsApp, had to retake the papers after they were found out.
The remaining one, who colluded with another person taking the exam and cheated in three of the papers, had to retake the entire preparatory course for what is known as Part B of the Bar exam.
They have all since passed the required exams, but their applications to be called to the Bar have been postponed - six months for the five and a year for the other.

Law graduates have to go through a six-month course and pass the Bar exam, known as Part B, as well as complete a six-month training contract with a law firm. They then qualify to be called to the Bar, which means they can practise as lawyers.
Graduates from approved foreign universities also have to take another exam known as Part A.
Applications have to be accepted by the Attorney-General (AG), the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (Sile) and the Law Society.

Twenty-six applicants to the Bar, including the six, had their Bar admissions hearings before Justice Choo last Wednesday (April 13).
The AG objected to the six applications because they had cheated in the Bar exam.
On Monday, the judge issued the grounds of decision to explain why he had agreed to a proposal by the AG for the applications to be adjourned.
Justice Choo said: "The AG was of the view that the applicants lacked honesty and integrity, and should not be admitted to the Bar, at least not for a while, since it is questionable whether they can presently swear the oath on admission which requires them to declare that they will 'truly and honestly conduct (themselves) in the practice of an advocate and solicitor according to the best of knowledge and ability and according to law'."
The one who was required to retake the entire course had denied any wrongdoing, unlike the five who admitted what they had done as soon as the institute began its inquiry.
She filed an affidavit apologising for her conduct only on April 11, two days before the admission hearing.
She explained that her answers were the same as the other person because they studied together and shared study notes.

The Sile, which conducts the exam and the preparatory course leading to the exam, rejected her explanation because her answers in the three papers were not just similar, but contained the same pattern and errors.
"They were not just similar but the same - warts and all. The Sile, however, gave her the benefit of the doubt in three other papers," said Justice Choo.
She was required to retake the entire Part B course, which comprises seven compulsory subjects, such as civil litigation practice, criminal litigation practice, family law practice and ethics and professional responsibility.
There are also electives such as mediation advocacy, the law and practice of arbitration, and wills, probate and administration practice. According to the Sile website, the Part B course and exam fees for 2021 were $6,420 for Singaporeans, $7,490 for permanent residents and $9,095 for foreign candidates.
Justice Choo said this incident has raised many questions about whether there is a culture of cheating.
"When so many applicants cheated in a professional qualifying examination in so many papers, including one for 'ethics and professional responsibility', then something is wrong somewhere," he said.
"Does the mode of present-day examinations make it more conducive for cheating? Have the examinees cheated because the modes of examinations in the law schools are similarly conducive for cheating?
"Furthermore, when a person cheats in a course meant to instil ethics and professional conduct, it raises the question, how is it that they had learnt so poorly from the course?"
Justice Choo noted that a lawyer who has acted dishonestly will be disciplined according to the process under the Legal Profession Act.
There is, however, no disciplinary process for a qualifying applicant to the Bar, except that the court hearing the application may refuse to admit the applicant.

Mr Jeyendran Jeyapal, representing the AG, had proposed the adjournment of the six's applications - not as a punishment, but for the six to "reflect on the error of their ways".
Justice Choo said: "He would be right because this is not a disciplinary proceeding before me."
Mr Christopher Daniel, counsel for the Law Society, and Ms Dew Wong, counsel for the institute, agreed with Mr Jeyendran, as did the six applicants, added the judge.
Justice Choo said: "(Judges) loath to shut the door on a wrongdoer with no prospects of redemption. But they also have a duty to prevent a repeat of the wrong, and to do so without breaking young backs in the process."
Justice Choo said Mr Jeyendran's proposal was fair and appeared to be the most viable option in the circumstances.
The judge said he was redacting the names of the applicants in the hope that they will not be prejudiced in the long run.
He directed that the court file be sealed, which means third parties cannot get documents filed in respect of the admissions.
"Second chances are for those who seize them. If ever they were to plead for a third, I wish them good luck."
Justice Choo warned that future cases may not be redacted, and the applications may be adjourned indefinitely.

 

[eatshitndie]

more like tryst and thrust as there are many chiobus.

 

[laksaboy]

In the spirit of "second chances", a High Court judge directed that the six not be named in the hope that they will not be prejudiced in the long run.

Second chances only for a select few.

Once again I say: do not let your kids recite the pledge.... you're teaching them to lie.

 

[shittypore]

All I can say, the leegal system here is a joke.

 

[Balls2U]

All I can say, the leegal system here is a joke.

And the quality of the lawyers we have here is also a joke. Next door Bolehland has much better quality lawyers.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

5 more trainee lawyers cheated in 2020 exam; A-G says it shows lack of honesty, integrity​

The Attorney-General is considering applications for admission to the Bar by the five candidates. PHOTO: ST FILE

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent
UPDATED

Apr 19, 2022

SINGAPORE - The number of trainee lawyers who cheated in their 2020 Bar examination has grown from six to 11.
On Tuesday (April 19), a spokesman for the Attorney-General's Chambers told The Straits Times the Attorney-General is considering five other applications by candidates who cheated in the 2020 Part B of the Bar exam.
No further details were given by the spokesman.
ST had reported on Monday (April 18) that six trainee lawyers who cheated in the exam have had their admissions delayed.
The spokesman said this was the first time the Attorney-General has objected to applications for admission to the Bar for cheating in the Bar exam.
She added the Attorney-General felt such applicants would not be currently fit to be admitted as advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore.
Their misconduct had showed they did not embody the key qualities of honesty and integrity that every lawyer must possess, she said.

The spokesman added: "At the end of their respective adjournments, the applicants would each be required to file an affidavit, showing why he/she is a fit and proper person to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore as of the date of that affidavit."
ST understands the Bar exam was held online in 2020.
The cases of cheating were first revealed in written grounds by High Court judge Choo Han Teck on Monday.

Five candidates, who had shared answers in six papers through WhatsApp, had to retake the papers after they were found out.
The remaining one, who colluded with another person taking the exam and cheated in three of the papers, had to retake the entire preparatory course for what is known as Part B of the Bar exam.
They have all since passed the required exams, but their applications to be called to the Bar have been postponed - six months for the five and a year for the other.
The Attorney-General had objected to the application by the six, who had mostly trained in big and renowned firms, to be admitted to the Bar.

Justice Choo had agreed to the Attorney-General's proposal that their applications be adjourned.
Law graduates have to go through a six-month course and pass the Bar exam, known as Part B, as well as complete a six-month training contract with a law firm.
They then qualify to be called to the Bar, which means they can practise as lawyers.
Applications have to be accepted by the Attorney-General, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education and the Law Society.

 

[batman1]

They can be company legal advisers but they cannot attend court hearings/trials.

 

[SBFNews]

they are sons and daughters of PAP elites.
that's why cannot disclose names and must protect them.
parents must be PAP people

 

[Patriotmissile]

Sibei jialat liao. This exacerbates the shit image of lawyers in sinkapore.
Cheat on ethics and moral education modules. What an irony.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Balancing scales of justice for trainee lawyers who cheated in Bar exam​

Toh Yong Chuan
Assistant Political Editor

The number of trainee lawyers who cheated in their 2020 Bar examination has grown from six to 11. ST PHOTO: KUA CHEE SIONG

Apr 20, 2022

SINGAPORE - There is unhappiness among some Singaporeans about how six trainee lawyers seemingly got off lightly with cheating in the professional Bar examination in 2020.
In a further twist, the Attorney-General said on Tuesday (April 19) that another five were found to have cheated in the same exam, and that their applications to be called to the Bar are under review.
The case involving the first six was made public on Monday after the High Court released its decision to postpone their applications to practise law in Singapore - by six months for five of them, and by a year for one.
The move was described in the decision as "not intended as a punishment" but rather "a little more stretching of time for (them) to reflect on the error of their ways".
To avoid having their actions leave a permanent stain on their records in their nascent legal career, the High Court made an unusual decision to protect their identities.
"I am redacting the names of the applicants in the hope that they will not be prejudiced in the long run. I am also directing that this file be sealed. But second chances are for those who seize them," said Justice Choo Han Teck.
These six are thus known as CTA, CTB, CTC, CTD, CTE and CTF in court records, naming conventions that are usually used for family court cases or criminal offences, where the identities of minors and victims have to be protected.

A check of court records and newspaper reports found no precedent to this case.
To understand how these six could have resorted to cheating, the context is important.
Aspiring lawyers have to clear four qualification hurdles.

The first step is obtaining a law degree from one of the three local law schools or a recognised overseas one.
Next, they have to work six months in a local law firm as a practice trainee. From next year, the training period will be extended to one year.
They also have to complete a six-month course and pass exams conducted by the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (Sile) - a statutory body - typically called the Bar exam.
The exam, held once a year, comprises seven compulsory and two elective subjects that cover topics such as criminal, civil and family law practices.


Lawyers have said that the Bar exam is the toughest part of the qualification process.
After passing the Bar exam, the final step is to apply to be admitted to the Singapore Bar, which gives them the licence to practise law here. These applications are heard by the Supreme Court.
The Attorney-General, Law Society or Sile can object to the applications.
In the case of the six trainees, the Attorney-General objected to their being admitted to the Bar on grounds that they were unfit as they had cheated in the Bar exam.
The entire journey takes more than five years. But while the path may be gruelling, countless lawyers have taken it, with some failing along the way and succeeding eventually.
This is why the shortcut that the six sought by cheating in the exams leaves a sour taste.
"Disgrace," said a friend who is a qualified lawyer.
That said, there are arguments why these six should be given a second chance.
One, they have not committed any crime or offence. There is no law against cheating in a law exam. Accordingly, there was nothing that the courts could have done to punish them directly for their actions.
Two, the six have all since passed the required exam, so there is no question of their lack of academic ability.

The public unhappiness comes down to what the trainee lawyers are seen to be lacking: integrity.
Some argue that their dishonest acts - they cheated in many papers, including, ironically, one on ethics - should have disqualified them from a profession where they are stewards to uphold justice.
Just last week, the Court of Three Judges - the highest disciplinary body for the legal profession - suspended an experienced lawyer for three years after finding that he acted dishonestly in managing a client.
He was found to have intentionally concealed information from his client and acted contrary to the client's instructions.
The practising lawyer of 21 years is a partner in a well-known local law firm and co-heads its family and divorce practice group.
He was not struck off the rolls because the disciplinary body found that his misconduct did not indicate a character defect that renders him unfit to remain in the profession, and it did not undermine the administration of justice.
That has been the consistent standard that the Court of Three Judges adopts to decide if a dishonest lawyer should remain in the profession.
But there also lies the rub: The six who cheated are not yet lawyers. Hence, the standards expected of lawyers, and disciplinary measures when they fall short, do not apply to them, yet.
"There are no provisions for disciplinary action where a qualified person misconducts himself before he has been admitted to the Bar," Justice Choo said.
One wonders if trainee teachers or police officers caught cheating in the National Institute of Education or Home Team Academy exams will be allowed to continue in their professions.

There is one more explanation for the public unhappiness.
"It would also be harsh to have one's professional career ended before it has even begun," said Justice Choo.
But not all will find the second-chance rationale fully persuasive because there are others who have had their future stained for arguably lesser infractions.
A case that pricks my conscience is the teenager who played a prank by lying on Instagram in May last year that he was infected with Covid-19.
For his two posts that were online for 15 minutes, the 19-year-old was convicted in court last year and sentenced to nine months' probation and 40 hours of community service.
He was named and photographed for posterity online.
In that case, the teen's mother reportedly pleaded with the judge to consider that her son has a bright future and was very remorseful.
It is unclear from the court decision if the six trainee lawyers were even remorseful, which is a key element of anyone pleading for a second chance. One of them apologised some 16 months after cheating in the exam, just two days before she was to have appeared in court.
There is no doubt that the six fell short of the standards expected of lawyers. Whether they are fit to become lawyers is a matter for the legal profession to eventually decide.
And now that they have caught a rare break from open scrutiny and remain publicly untainted by their dishonest acts, one can only hope that they learn from their mistakes and, should they go on to practise law, remember and serve those to whom the law was less kind.

 

[Confuseous]

They copied each other's work, word for word, like Primary school kids.
They have a bright future? Or they are already snubbing the people who
are their seniors.

 

[mojito]

May be FT a gain that why can not this close?

 

[melzp]

where are all the academic law professors now, when yr voices are needed ?

It is WHO you know in the LAW system here.
I say this coz I hv been a victim before.

 

[A Singaporean]

Trust them? You must be fucking kidding. It would like picking up your soap with CAQ behind u.

 

[LexLuthor]

The six had mostly trained in big and renowned firms. Five of them are currently working as legal executives.
Five, who had shared answers in six papers through WhatsApp, had to retake the papers after they were found out.
The remaining one, who colluded with another person taking the exam and cheated in three of the papers, had to retake the entire preparatory course for what is known as Part B of the Bar exam.

It's not the trainees whom they are trying to protect. It's the big and renowned law firms that they are protecting.

 

[wikiphile]

I trust that lawyers will fuck you over. The boomers here elected one some 50 plus years ago and his son is still fucking us over till this day.

 

[Balls2U]

I trust that lawyers will fuck you over. The boomers here elected one some 50 plus years ago and his son is still fucking us over till this day.

And expect his grandson to continue fucking you in time to come.

 

[gatehousethetinkertailor]

Trust them? You must be fucking kidding. It would like picking up your soap with CAQ behind u.

The exams were conducted virtually :

"Two lawyers who took the Part B exams in late-2020 — both requested anonymity — told TODAY that although the Covid-19 pandemic forced the exams to be held virtually, there were few rules in place that prevented examinees from cheating.

Throughout the eight days of tests, candidates sat for the exam from home.

They would be given a password-protected document containing the exam questions and were told to type their answers on a word document and submit it online within a set time, they said.

There was no requirement to turn on their web cameras to show that they were not communicating with others and they did not have to download any examination software such as those that locked their computers from accessing messaging applications, they added.

The other lawyer, 36, said that the lax rules meant that candidates could, in theory, even take the exam in the same room without the examiners finding out.

Like previous Part B exams, the one held in 2020 was an open-book exam, meaning that candidates were allowed to refer to notes and other materials. "

https://www.todayonline.com/singapo...re-trainee-lawyers-found-have-cheated-1876631

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Family lawyer who lied to court in divorce case suspended 3 years​

The Court of Three Judges said misconduct involving dishonesty will often lead to the errant lawyer being struck off the roll. ST PHOTO: KUA CHEE SIONG

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

Apr 20, 2022

SINGAPORE - A family lawyer who was trying to reach a settlement with opposing counsel on the amendment of a document lied to the court that he had been "unable" to get his client's confirmation.
Mr Koh Tien Hua then consented to having portions of the document struck out, which was contrary to what his client wanted, and hid this fact from the client.
Last Thursday (April 14), Mr Koh, a partner at Harry Elias Partnership, was suspended for three years for acting against the instructions of his client, Mr Andrew Loh, and for dishonestly concealing this fact from him.
In meting out the suspension, the Court of Three Judges, which has the power to suspend or disbar lawyers, also considered that Mr Koh had made misleading statements to an assistant registrar.
The decision marked the end of a six-year legal fight for Mr Loh, who lodged various complaints against Mr Koh with the Law Society in 2016.
The complaints have been examined and re-examined by an inquiry committee, a disciplinary tribunal, the High Court and Court of Appeal, each arriving at a somewhat different conclusion about the extent and severity of Mr Koh's misconduct.
In its written judgment, the Court of Three Judges, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, reiterated that misconduct involving dishonesty will often lead to the errant lawyer being struck off the roll.

​

However, the court said Mr Koh's dishonest conduct did not warrant a striking off as it did not indicate a character defect, and also did not undermine the administration of justice.
"The real nature of Koh's wrong, in our judgment, is his woefully inadequate management of Loh as his client," said the court.
The court noted that none of the parts struck out by Mr Koh's consent were among the seven pages that were later reinstated on Mr Loh's appeal.

The court also found that Mr Koh's misstatements to the assistant registrar, while unbecoming of a lawyer, were of no consequence.
His concealment of what had happened at the hearing was not elaborate, said the court.
"Simply put, he wished to avoid being confronted with the consequences of his failure to abide by basic client-management practices," said the court.
Mr Koh also did not benefit from his dishonesty and his conduct did not, in the end, cause Mr Loh any harm, the court added.
Mr Loh had engaged Mr Koh in July 2015 to act for him in his divorce.
A neighbour, whom Mr Loh alleged had an affair with his wife, was named as a co-defendant in the proceedings.
The co-defendant contested the allegation of adultery and applied to strike out certain parts of Mr Loh's statement of particulars, a document which sets out his story of how the marriage broke down.
The application was scheduled to be heard on July 27, 2015.

Some 20 days prior to the hearing, Mr Loh told his lawyer that he wanted to establish that the co-defendant was the initiator of the affair.
After the meeting, Mr Loh sent several e-mails to Mr Koh setting out his responses to the application, asking for a copy of the written submissions, and seeking an update.
The lawyer did not respond.
At the hearing, Mr Koh consented to certain parts being struck out from the document, after telling the assistant registrar that he was unable to get his client's confirmation on a settlement.
Mr Loh was unhappy with the outcome and wanted to appeal. Mr Koh did not tell his client that he had consented to the striking out.
The lawyer filed the appeal on August 11, 2015, and was discharged the next day.
Mr Loh obtained the court's notes in September 2015 and questioned Mr Koh's handling of the matter. He lodged the complaints eight months later.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Lawyer who was absent from court and ignored more than 70 messages from client suspended​

Selina Lum
Law Correspondent


FEB 21, 2020

SINGAPORE - A lawyer caused his client to be forever barred from claiming a sum of about $170,000 when he failed to attend a crucial court hearing.
Instead of taking steps to remedy the situation, for the next 14 months, he ignored more than 70 text and e-mail messages from his client.
On Friday (Feb 21), Mr Peter Ezekiel, who has been a lawyer for more than 22 years, was suspended from practising for two years for his misconduct.
In handing down the punishment, the Court of Three Judges said that it was warranted given the "prolonged duration and blatant nature of his wrongdoing".
The two-year suspension will take effect after the expiry of Mr Ezekiel's current suspension for a separate offence.
Last year, he was suspended for three years for acting for two clients with conflicting interests in a criminal matter and ended up favouring one over the other.
In the current case, he was appointed to act for a company called Worldwide Factoring, which wanted to stake a third-party claim in a civil dispute over a sum of $170,140.56 between two other firms.

​

On April 4, 2017, Worldwide sent him a cheque for $300 as a deposit but he did not issue a receipt.
He failed to attend a hearing on April 11, 2017, and as a result, the court threw out Worldwide's claim and ordered it to pay costs of $850 each to the plaintiff and the defendant.
The court had earlier ordered the company to engage a lawyer by the hearing date, failing which its claim would be dismissed.

A few days later, Mr Ezekiel contacted the defendant's lawyers to find out the status of the case but did not inform his client of the outcome.
The client found out only on April 24, 2017, through a letter from the defendant's lawyers.
Company representatives sent numerous text messages and e-mails to Mr Ezekiel but he did not respond. The company lodged a complaint with the Law Society in September 2017.
In early 2018, Mr Ezekiel signed two notes promising to make things right for his client. But he did not file any court application and continued ignoring text messages.
In June last year, a disciplinary tribunal found him guilty of three charges - failing to account for the deposit, failing to attend court and failing to contact his client.
The tribunal said that his refusal to contact his client was "egregious and inexcusable" and that his case was serious enough to be referred to the Court of Three Judges, which has the power to suspend and disbar lawyers.


On Friday, Mr Ezekiel was not in court to argue his case.
The Law Society's lawyer, Ms Wendy Lin, noted that he did not deny receiving the text messages and e-mails and that his lack of response was clearly not an oversight.