 |
|
20-04-2022, 12:05 AM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Choo is smart. Why kill off the 6 by himself? The court of public opinion will kill them off later. Plus, he gets to look like a kind and loving papa.
|
Names are redacted. They will go on to be employed like nothing happened and proceed to continue this behaviour in practice.
|
20-04-2022, 12:06 AM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Names are redacted. They will go on to be employed like nothing happened and proceed to continue this behaviour in practice.
|
Some people already know who they are.
SIC reveal.
|
20-04-2022, 12:12 AM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Some people already know who they are.
SIC reveal.
|
Can trace their AAS numbers
From the written judgment
Lalita Chelliah for applicants in AAS 14, 22, 23, 29 and 30 of 2022;
Cheryl Ng for applicant in AAS 27 of 2022.
Better be careful. If they can cheat once, they can cheat twice, thrice. It gets worse when they have their own firms or join politics. Humans, in general, do no change easily.
|
20-04-2022, 10:13 AM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
I really don't see why we are being so lenient to these 6 (or 11) when it has been repeated ad nauseum that integrity is not to be compromised in this profession.
Just last week, a very respected family law senior practitioner was suspended for 3 years by the Court of 3 Judges for inter alia being dishonest to his client and the court in the conduct of a case. The court also found that the lawyer did not benefit from his dishonesty, nor did the dishonesty ultimately caused the client harm.
While involving different circumstances and fora, the juxtaposition of outcomes could not have been more stark.
If, as has repeatedly been emphasized, misconduct involving dishonesty will often lead to an order for striking of, the outcome in this cheating saga is seriously hard to rationalize.
|
These students also had the academic credentials to sign with the big firms. It really makes you wonder why they cheated. Hope AGC publishes their names for the world to see. They owe it to the public.
|
20-04-2022, 10:27 AM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
I really don't see why we are being so lenient to these 6 (or 11) when it has been repeated ad nauseum that integrity is not to be compromised in this profession.
Just last week, a very respected family law senior practitioner was suspended for 3 years by the Court of 3 Judges for inter alia being dishonest to his client and the court in the conduct of a case. The court also found that the lawyer did not benefit from his dishonesty, nor did the dishonesty ultimately caused the client harm.
While involving different circumstances and fora, the juxtaposition of outcomes could not have been more stark.
If, as has repeatedly been emphasized, misconduct involving dishonesty will often lead to an order for striking of, the outcome in this cheating saga is seriously hard to rationalize.
|
These trainees were effectively suspended for 6 months to a year due to their cheating. I think that is a proportionate penalty considering that (a) they were trainee lawyers and were not yet subject to the professional conduct rules; (b) their dishonesty was not directed at the courts or any client; and (c) they are relatively young and immature.
In contrast, the senior family lawyer had 20+ years of experience, should know better, his misconduct involved deceiving both his client and the courts, and when caught he fought the dishonesty charges for 7 years instead of coming clean quickly.
All cases of dishonesty ought to be punished, but it is right that there should be distinctions depending on the seriousness of the conduct and the circumstances also.
|
20-04-2022, 11:04 AM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
These trainees were effectively suspended for 6 months to a year due to their cheating. I think that is a proportionate penalty considering that (a) they were trainee lawyers and were not yet subject to the professional conduct rules; (b) their dishonesty was not directed at the courts or any client; and (c) they are relatively young and immature.
In contrast, the senior family lawyer had 20+ years of experience, should know better, his misconduct involved deceiving both his client and the courts, and when caught he fought the dishonesty charges for 7 years instead of coming clean quickly.
All cases of dishonesty ought to be punished, but it is right that there should be distinctions depending on the seriousness of the conduct and the circumstances also.
|
Dishonesty is dishonesty. Why must be directed at anyone. It’s an integrity issue, not competency issue. Are u also one of them ah
|
20-04-2022, 02:35 PM
|
|
|
Where is Mr "If I am the King of Singapore"? No one told him about the students cheating? Where is the LinkedIn post?
|
20-04-2022, 04:50 PM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
saw on reddit that the 6 have been identified through their AAS numbers?
"If you have access to an e-litigation account, you can look up the brief details of the matter with the AAS reference."
|
how does the sealing order normally work?
i suppose minimally you wont be able to actually obtain inspection of any cause paper. but if you can still use the number to look up actual party names (as opposed to CTA or other code names), it seems to defeat the purpose of Choo J's order.
or is it the case that the actual names are supposed to be substituted with code names, but elit didnt have time to implement the order of court yet?
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» 30 Recent Threads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
