Lawyer Salary

Will firms forget about its trainees since TCs are signed 1-2 years prior? Has it happened before?

I'm a current y4 student and I have a tc with a big4 corp. Is it possible at this point for me to change TC? Would it ruin my reputation at the firm that I'm currently supposed to tc at?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm a current y4 student and I have a tc with a big4 corp. Is it possible at this point for me to change TC? Would it ruin my reputation at the firm that I'm currently supposed to tc at?

Which department are you in?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Neutral observer here, but in all fairness the earlier poster did raise a couple of valid points even though he/she seemed to be siding with the cheater by saying that SILE should also take some responsibility.

Context behind how the cheating happened and what disciplinary action was already meted out (e.g retaking exams and what-not) are relevant to what punishments should be given to them now. I am curious as to how this whole thing will pan out.

I disagree that the points are valid. If you read carefully, the poster is making the flawed “asking for it” argument.

SILE designed a cheatable exam so SILE is "asking for it", hence also responsible.
A rape victim is dressed in an skimpy way so the victim is "asking for it", hence the victim is also responsible.

The other argument is also flawed.
There might be other cheats around that are uncaught, so the cheats deserve a lighter sentence.
DYT a crime committed in a high crime area deserves a lighter sentence, than the same crime committed in a low crime area?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I disagree that the points are valid. If you read carefully, the poster is making the flawed “asking for it” argument.

SILE designed a cheatable exam so SILE is "asking for it", hence also responsible.
A rape victim is dressed in an skimpy way so the victim is "asking for it", hence the victim is also responsible.

The other argument is also flawed.
There might be other cheats around that are uncaught, so the cheats deserve a lighter sentence.
DYT a crime committed in a high crime area deserves a lighter sentence, than the same crime committed in a low crime area?

I agree with your two points mentioned above, and he post was indeed flawed in those regard. However, as mentioned earlier, the context behind how the cheating happened and what disciplinary action was already meted out (e.g retaking exams and what-not) are still relevant to what punishments should be given to them now.

I may face a lot of flak for this view, but I think that it is only fair to release the names of the cheaters if they are to be admitted to the bar. But if their application is not accepted yet (i.e debar), then releasing the names seems to be double punishment. They have not committed any criminal offence, although their actions are highly morally questionable.

Where do you see their "range of punishments" to lie ? It is an interesting question. For cheating in school exams, their names are not usually revealed. However, the counter-argument of course is that we should superimpose legal profession rules on them (for policy reasons) even though they are not admitted to the profession yet.

It's one thing to despise their morally culpable conduct, but it is also important to give effect to due procedural process instead of being outcome-focused. Just giving a balanced assessment here and am not taking any sides.

what is the current scale for NQ to 3PQE in wongp now and the typical bonuses?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I agree with your two points mentioned above, and he post was indeed flawed in those regard. However, as mentioned earlier, the context behind how the cheating happened and what disciplinary action was already meted out (e.g retaking exams and what-not) are still relevant to what punishments should be given to them now.

I may face a lot of flak for this view, but I think that it is only fair to release the names of the cheaters if they are to be admitted to the bar. But if their application is not accepted yet (i.e debar), then releasing the names seems to be double punishment. They have not committed any criminal offence, although their actions are highly morally questionable.

Where do you see their "range of punishments" to lie ? It is an interesting question. For cheating in school exams, their names are not usually revealed. However, the counter-argument of course is that we should superimpose legal profession rules on them (for policy reasons) even though they are not admitted to the profession yet.

It's one thing to despise their morally culpable conduct, but it is also important to give effect to due procedural process instead of being outcome-focused. Just giving a balanced assessment here and am not taking any sides.

A lot of good logic. But my humble opinion is that the names should be disclosed because I am kaypoh.

These 11 cheaters have effectively pulled down the whole cohort and the future cohort - they have practically erased the advancements everyone has made as now people will be on a guessing game to see who are the cheats.

Please name them for those who know, as it is really unfair for those who worked hard and had to be in the same crowd as them.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

These 11 cheaters have effectively pulled down the whole cohort and the future cohort - they have practically erased the advancements everyone has made as now people will be on a guessing game to see who are the cheats.

Please name them for those who know, as it is really unfair for those who worked hard and had to be in the same crowd as them.

Not a bad try. But still - too bad.

Honestly, I doubt that anyone who is a law student or lawyer who graduated within the past 5 years doesnt know the names by now. It's been shared around so much. So the rest of you must just be busybodies from outside the legal fraternity

All the chatter about these 11 losers is getting tiresome la.

I'm not even the least bit interested in their identities. To my mind, they're just a bunch of lazy entitled bums without integrity.

I wish the Court would've just shut the door on their admissions for good and be done with.

It's perfectly OK not to be a lawyer one. Hardly a death sentence. They still have a degree and can find other jobs that do not require a practising certificate. And I'm sure some of them will join daddy's company or something.