Aspiring Lawyer Banned from Bar Exam For 4 Months For Plagiarised Paper Submission

Plagiarism is a serious offence, to the point that universities often have courses covering what exactly it is and how to avoid it—some universities even consider reusing your old work as self-plagiarism.

Because of its gravity, it comes with consequences, and that was what this aspiring lawyer learned.

On 11 April, a prospective lawyer was banned from taking the bar exam for four months after he admitted that he plagiarised his university paper submitted six years ago.

What Happened

When prospective lawyer Suria Shaik Aziz submitted an application to the bar, he voluntarily admitted that his university paper, submitted six years ago in 2016, had a 42% similarity score—that means that 42% of its content was plagiarised from other sources.

He possibly did this because under the Legal Profession Act, people applying to be legal practitioners are required to disclose anything that affects their suitability to practise law. 

Of course, he was armed with excuses for his misdeeds. According to him, he had been suffering from a cold and thus unwell at that time, and the deadline for submission was approaching fast. 

Because of that, he claimed that he did not have time to reference the sources he used in his paper, which is still counted as plagiarism.

In his application to the bar, Mr Suria admitted that during his university studies in 2016, he failed to cite the sources (like other academic papers) he used, and handed in a paper of which 42% was plagiarised from other texts. 

At that time, he was studying in an Australian university. In court, he explained that he had been ill and thus focused on his core modules, neglecting his electives in the process. Afraid that he would miss the 12am deadline, he skipped over citing his work and submitted it directly.

The Judge’s Remarks

In an oral ruling made by Chief Justice Menon on 11 April, he shot down Mr Suria’s claims.

He said that the key to the case was whether Mr Suria had intentionally committed plagiarism, or simply did not have enough time to cite his sources before he rushed to hand the paper in. 

Disagreeing with Mr Suria’s position, Chief Justice Menon said that when Mr Suria had submitted the first draft of his paper, his professor had reminded him that he had to cite his sources and make a bibliography.

He was told then that if he failed to do this, his paper would possibly be counted as plagiarised, which was unacceptable to the school. 

Knowing this, as well as the consequences of plagiarism, Mr Suia still submitted his paper regardless of the 42% text similarity he was aware it possessed. 

In light of his lack of academic integrity and the fact that he had made this decision consciously, the Chief Justice ruled that Mr Suria was not allowed to apply to the bar in the next four months. 

He also suggested that Mr Suria spend some time to reflect on his actions before submitting another application. Mr Suria accepted this judgement and withdrew his application to the bar. 

Honesty Important For Lawyers

Mr Suria admitted that he made the wrong choice due to a lapse in judgement, but claimed that he did not know his actions were counted as plagiarism, and never had the intention to plagiarise. 

“I didn’t think too much of it, I just wanted to submit my assignment as fast as I could, and I was already prepared to receive a low mark,” he said. 

Chief Justice Menon disagreed with this, questioning Mr Suria on why he did not note down the sources when using content from other texts in his paper, since that would not be too time-consuming. 

He also pointed out that Mr Suria had previously applied for sick leave to extend the submission deadlines for his papers, but failed to do so this time, even when he realised its similarity was above 42%. 

He added that if Mr Suria had really been prepared to receive a low mark as he claimed he did, he did not have to rush to submit his assignment on time. 

His paper was rejected by the school then, and Mr Suria had to make a bibliography, cite his sources, and resubmit the paper before it was accepted. 

Chief Justice Menon also highlighted the importance of honesty in practising law. In his opinion, Mr Suria did not clearly understand and acknowledge that his actions were wrong, and instead insisted that he did not have an intent to plagiarise, which proves that he was still not prepared to be a lawyer. 

Other Cases Like This

On 9 March, Lawyer Tay Jie Qi, who admitted to plagiarism in a paper she submitted in law school, was called to the bar.

She was originally scheduled to be called to the bar in August 2022. 

Tay admitted to plagiarising multiple paragraphs in her paper about constitutional and administrative law, which accounted for 30% of her grade. 

When confronted about it, she apologised and was issued a letter reprimand, and was subjected to internal disciplinary action by her university, Singapore Management University (SMU). 

She also received a deduction of five marks from that paper. The incident was also not reflected on her academic transcript. 

Like Mr Suria, she admitted to this incident during her initial call to the bar. In light of this, her application was postponed but she eventually was admitted to the bar in March this year, seven months after the original date.