Court dismisses aspiring lawyer’s application to the Bar, pointing to cover-up of plagiarism and 'character deficit'
- An aspiring lawyer had his application to the Bar dismissed and was disallowed to reapply until after five years
- This was after the court found him lacking in character, that he had plagiarised twice in law school, and was not truthful during the application
- Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said that merely allowing a withdrawal of the application was not enough, given the "gravity of the applicant’s present character deficit”
- This was the latest in a series of cases over the last two years where a question was raised about an aspiring lawyer’s fitness of character
BY
TAUFIQ ZALIZAN
Published March 22, 2024Updated March 22, 2024
WhatsAppTelegramFacebookTwitterEmailLinkedIn
SINGAPORE — An aspiring lawyer who had plagiarised twice in law school was found by the court to be so lacking in character to the extent that Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon ordered that the man's application to the Bar be dismissed instead of allowing it to be withdrawn.
ADVERTISEMENT
The applicant, 47-year-old Gabriel Silas Tang Rafferty, is also disallowed from submitting a new application to practise for a duration of not fewer than five years, a written judgement published on Friday (March 22) showed.
Mr Rafferty had plagiarised twice while undertaking his juris doctor programme at the Singapore Management University (SMU) but was not upfront about these incidents when applying to be admitted to the Bar.
In the written judgement, Mr Menon said that the present case was the latest in a series of cases over the last two years where a question was raised about an aspiring lawyer’s fitness of character.
For example, a law graduate who plagiarised during an examination and lied about it later, had her application deferred for five months before being called to the Bar earlier this month.
In some of the cases, the applications were either granted or allowed to be withdrawn.
However, the present case was the first where permitting a withdrawal “would be an inadequate response to the gravity of the applicant’s present character deficit,” Mr Menon said before calling for the application to be dismissed.
“While the practical effect of these orders may bear similarities, the signalling of each of these orders is fundamentally different,” he added.
Furthermore, Mr Menon found that the applicant’s “present character deficits are so dire and his lack of insight so acute” that a substantial period of time would be minimally required for him to reform himself.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
In the written judgement, it was stated that Mr Rafferty's first plagiarism incident happened in January 2019, when he sat for a module called Legal Research and Writing 2.He had asked for a one-day extension for the assignment deadline for personal reasons.
In the written assignment that constitutes 5 per cent of the module grade, he was found to have copied “many portions” of a classmate’s work.
There was no suggestion that Mr Rafferty had unintentionally failed to give proper credit to the classmate’s assignment, Mr Menon said.
ADVERTISEMENT
He was later penalised by being awarded a failing grade for it his assignment.
However, when applying to the Bar, Mr Rafferty did not disclose what he did, claiming that the school lecturers had assured him that the incident “will be kept confidential”.
It came to light only when the Attorney-General contacted the school during his application process to the Bar.
Despite being caught and counselled over the first incident, Mr Rafferty again committed plagiarism soon afterwards.
“That the applicant did not learn from the first incident and so blithely repeated it, suggests a disturbing degree of recalcitrance,” Mr Menon said.
In March 2019, Mr Rafferty submitted a graded research paper — barely two months after the first incident — which was found by a plagiarism detection software to have had content “plagiarised from multiple sources” without attribution.
After an enquiry by the school, he was given a fail grade for the module, entitled Comparative Legal Systems, and was issued a formal letter of reprimand.
ADVERTISEMENT
He declared this second incident in his application to the Bar.
In his application, he explained that he had told the course lecturer after being caught that it was his “first time” writing a research paper and he had “mistakenly thought” that the task required him to compile findings of his research and keep the materials “as accurate as possible”.
It was for this reason that he had “expressed in verbatim as much as possible” the content from his sources, he said in his application.
It was found that more portions of Mr Rafferty’s paper had been plagiarised than not, Mr Menon said.
THE COURT’S DECISION
In his judgement, Mr Menon found the failure to disclose the first incident a “serious failure”.“The fact that the applicant knew he was required to disclose the second incident leads to the irresistible conclusion that he also knew he ought to disclose the first incident because it would be relevant to the court’s consideration of his admission application,” he added.
Touching on Mr Rafferty’s explanation that he believed his wrongdoing was already “forgiven” by the school, Mr Menon said that he found this explanation “wholly without basis and altogether appalling”.
ADVERTISEMENT
“In my judgement, the applicant did not disclose the first incident because he thought the court and the stakeholders would not find (out) about it, given his belief that SMU would not disclose or divulge the matter.”
Mr Menon also found that the applicant had not been truthful about the extent of his plagiarism on both occasions.
For example, in relation to the second incident, Mr Rafferty had colour-coded portions of the research paper, which he said he had copied wholesale from other sources. However, the Attorney-General later identified other plagiarised portions that he had not colour-coded.
As an example of the extent of the plagiarism, Mr Menon attached in his written judgement an extract of the research paper, which found that the entirety of Mr Rafferty’s conclusion was plagiarised.
During his Bar admission, Mr Rafferty similarly under-declared the portions of the first assignment he had copied from his classmate, even after the case was uncovered during his Bar application process.
Mr Menon said that there were different options that the court could take in response to an application from an aspiring lawyer with questionable conduct.
Allowing an applicant to withdraw his admission application “should be seen as an invitation to the applicant to take the first step” towards rehabilitation, by publicly taking responsibility for his wrong.
ADVERTISEMENT
“This will be an appropriate course where the court is satisfied that the applicant has displayed discernible signs of insight into his ethical issues and the need for reform and rehabilitation."
On the other hand, if the applicant has not begun to truly appreciate the ethical consequences of his misconduct, it would be appropriate to dismiss the application instead, he added.
“I am faced here with an applicant who evidently does not yet appreciate or acknowledge the full extent of his wrongdoing, who does not appreciate his duty of candour and who has attempted to mislead the court and the stakeholders in his application for admission.”
Mr Menon also said that the deferment period of five years is not a form of punishment, but is a minimum duration that the court considers the applicant needs to reflect, learn and grow.
He repeated the point that the purpose of the inquiry is not to punish the applicant but to provide him with the opportunity for rehabilitation.
“That said, it should be amply clear to the applicant that if he does intend to make any such application, he would be well-advised to make full disclosure of all the relevant facts and matters, including this judgement.”
ADVERTISEMENT
In 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic, several trainee lawyers were found to have cheated in the Bar examinations. Law graduates have to pass the exams in order to be qualified to practise law or apply to the Bar in Singapore.
At the opening of the legal year two months back, Mr Menon said a working group has recommended that ethics modules become a mandatory part of the Bar exam and in continuing education modules for lawyers. This is to ensure that lawyers and law students remain up-to-date with their ethical obligations.
This was after he appointed a team early last year to address what he said was a “troubling rise” in breaches of professional standards among lawyers and an increase in disciplinary tribunals in the past couple of years.
