Debated in Parliament on 21 Jan 2014.
Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Law (a) whether any persons have been denied admission to the Singapore Bar for misconduct or ethical breaches committed during their undergraduate law studies locally or overseas; and (b) whether there is a mechanism in place for
Page: 34
our law schools to inform the relevant parties of persons who may not be suitable for admission to the Singapore Bar due to misconduct or gross ethical breaches during their undergraduate law studies.
Madam, under the Legal Profession Act, an applicant cannot be admitted as an advocate or solicitor if he or she is not of good character. When applying for admission, the applicant has to affirm or swear by way of affidavit, facts that affect his suitability to practise as an advocate and solicitor. This includes any misconduct or ethical breaches. Additionally, the applicant must also exhibit in his affidavit a certificate of diligence from a Singapore law practice from which he received supervised training. The Singapore law practice cannot issue this certificate of diligence if it knows of any misconduct or ethical breaches that affect the applicant's suitability for admission as an advocate and solicitor. The admission criteria do not distinguish between misconduct or ethical breaches which take place during or outside the course of an applicant's undergraduate law studies.
The affidavit which the applicant affirms or swears by must be served on the Attorney-General, the Law Society and the Singapore Institute of Legal Education. They may file a notice of objection against the applicant should they determine that he is not of good character. Similarly, members of the public, including law schools, who may have knowledge of facts that have a bearing on the applicant's unsuitability to practise, may also file a notice of objection within 30 days of the application for admission.
The agencies concerned do not keep records on the number of persons who were refused admission to the Bar on account of previous misconduct or ethical breaches.
Madam, I appreciate the Senior Minister of State's reply in affirming that ethical breaches even during the course of studies could impact upon one's suitability for admission to the Bar. My question is whether the law schools are sufficiently apprised of this.
I know it might come as a surprise, but never in my career as a law academic have I known of academics being approached by the Law School to indicate whether such cases should be notified to the relevant agencies. When you ask the students, students also take the same view. They do not see their conduct or misconduct in the Law School as having any bearing on their
Page: 35
suitability for practice.
I appreciate that affirmation, but I think there is a need to emphasise this and, of course, the question is: which is the relevant body? It is important because students think they can get away and many of the bad habits are learnt during the course of their undergraduate studies.
Madam, I thank the Member for his comments. Indeed, in order to become an advocate and solicitor and be called to the Bar, it is important that the applicant is of good character and the right suitability. Good character and right suitability do not start from the time you begin your training at a law practice. It is something which pertains to the essential individual character of that person and could be affected by matters which have occurred even before the applicant has made the application to be admitted to the Bar. This issue of character is not constrained in terms of time. What is important is that at the time that the application is made and heard, the Court has the opportunity to determine that the person is of the appropriate suitability to be admitted. After all, that person is going to have in his or her hands the practice of the law that affects the rights of individuals and the public at large. That is the first point.
The second point that the Member made was whether or not the law schools were aware of their ability to communicate their knowledge of any misconduct or ethical breaches. Members of the law school would also be lawyers and they should be acquainted with the law. In case they are not, I would direct their attention to Rule 28(1) of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules. These are the Rules which provide that any person – this includes a member of the public – may file a notice of objection to the application for admission to the Bar. Indeed, that is the purpose of the fact of the application being made public. Applications for admission to the Bar are put on the court website and the purpose of that is to give notice to everybody that this particular person has applied to be admitted to the Bar and, by the same token, anybody who intends to object can put in a notice of objection.
Certainly, whilst this can be promulgated publicly, I would urge the law schools to look at the Rules and also, in the course of their discipline for the students, to encourage the students to remember that this issue of character relates not just to the time they make the application, but also before and even after they are called to the Bar.
Page: 36
PAPERCUTS