Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am genuinely confused..this new guy applied to withdraw his admission on the basis that he will not apply for admission in the next five years. He probably wants to withdraw so his name won’t get publicised like the rest (but it eventually did as we all know). Is it even necessary for him to withdraw since he probably won’t even be allowed to get admitted in the first place? Now because he applied to withdraw, he has to agree to these onerous conditions that don’t even apply to the five other cheats in the first place. I don’t understand the rationale for this at all.

Seeing what happened to the initial 6 who were publicly named, the writing is on the wall (i.e. that he and the other remaining 4 would be publicly named too). He probably saw that and knows he'll be unemployable for the foreseeable future.

As reported, both he and Lynn Kuek took the same approach of trying to downplay their conduct, unlike the other 5 who fessed up the moment they came under SILE investigation. So in the public's eyes, his conduct is even more egregious.

The withdrawal is probably an attempt to portray remorse. Sorta like an act of hara kiri, falling on his sword to rehabilitate his public image. In truth, he likely has little inclination or motivation to continue pursing admission or gainful employment in the legal sector anyways.

My 2cents of the possible strategy here.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am genuinely confused..this new guy applied to withdraw his admission on the basis that he will not apply for admission in the next five years. He probably wants to withdraw so his name won’t get publicised like the rest (but it eventually did as we all know). Is it even necessary for him to withdraw since he probably won’t even be allowed to get admitted in the first place? Now because he applied to withdraw, he has to agree to these onerous conditions that don’t even apply to the five other cheats in the first place. I don’t understand the rationale for this at all.

Where's the reported judgment on this?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am genuinely confused..this new guy applied to withdraw his admission on the basis that he will not apply for admission in the next five years. He probably wants to withdraw so his name won’t get publicised like the rest (but it eventually did as we all know). Is it even necessary for him to withdraw since he probably won’t even be allowed to get admitted in the first place? Now because he applied to withdraw, he has to agree to these onerous conditions that don’t even apply to the five other cheats in the first place. I don’t understand the rationale for this at all.

about the five year thing, not clear based on public reporting that he applied to withdraw on that basis. more likely it was imposed by CJ as a compromise between dismissal asked for by AG and unconditional withdrawal. ("... allowed to withdraw his application to be called to the Bar after he agreed to two conditions set by the court.")\

(interesting legal question - any difference between withdrawal and dismissal of AAS? is there such a thing as res judicata for AAS?)

before we speculate that he is trying a strategy, where he seeks anonymity as some sort of exchange for withdrawal (as opposed to the adjournments for the six), we should probably look at the timelines.

[2022] SGHC 87 was heard on 13 april and decided on 18 april.

ST reports that he applied to withdraw his application on 22 april and sealing and redaction was only sought later. ie, not at time of his application. this is somewhat against the theory that he applied to withdraw to avoid further publicity.

it should also be noted that the AG's application to rescind the sealing order was heard and allowed in [2022] SGHC 93 on 27 april. therefore, at the time of his application, for all he knows, he can expect similar treatment to the six - adjournment and anonymity.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Where's the reported judgment on this?

only ST reporting. written grounds to be released at later date. only heard on 11 may.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

only ST reporting. written grounds to be released at later date. only heard on 11 may.

Thanks

10 char

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Any experiences to share of burnout, panic attacks, coping with stress in this profession?

Relinquish your position and job to cecas if you need to ask that question, law is not for the weak.

His lawyer explains, read into this what you will: s://wakeup.sg/cheating-trainees/

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Relinquish your position and job to cecas if you need to ask that question, law is not for the weak.

Actually why can't we turn the tables around and join ceca law firms? We speak english and are common law qualified.

Cyril Amarchand or Khaitan & Co hiring?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

His lawyer explains, read into this what you will: s://wakeup.sg/cheating-trainees/

Frankly I thought the post by the lawyer was misguided and ended up giving the matter much more publicity than it otherwise would have gotten, not to mention trying to put a positive spin to a matter that is impossible to defend. But maybe they had their reasons. Some of the criticisms have been uncalled for though.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

be careful vocalising your thoughts publicly. lots of powerful people in the legal fraternity are catholics n very active in the community

Ex-Catholic and EP at major firm here. This is true. Catholicism is a tool of the New World Order used to control the minds of the people of the Global South within a neocolonialism context. I quit the religion after refusing to follow orders of the Vatican and NWO overlords.

Those who are old enough to remember Operation Spectrum will know how Singapore confronted the existential threat posed by the New World Order.