The Court’s Assessment of Character in the Admission of Lawyers (Non-Practitioners): Re Tan Jia Wei Zenn and other matters

The Court’s Assessment of Character in the Admission of Lawyers (Non-Practitioners): Re Tan Jia Wei Zenn and other matters [2026] SGHC 46; [2026] 3 SLR 1613

I. Executive Summary

The Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2023 introduced a two-stage process (“new admissions framework”) for the admission of Advocates and Solicitors (“AAS”) in Singapore. Pursuant to section 11A of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) (“LPA”) and rule 25 of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2024 (“LPA Rules”), aspiring lawyers must now first be admitted as a Lawyer (Non-Practitioner) (“LNP”) before seeking admission as an AAS. 

In Re Tan Jia Wei Zenn and other matters [2026] 3 SLR 1613, the General Division of the High Court (the “HC”) heard some of the first LNP applications to be contested on the ground that the applicants were not presently suitable for admission in terms of his or her character. The HC first noted that in determining the appropriate judicial approach to contested LNP applications, the principles previously applied to AAS admission cases before this new admissions framework came into being, applied with equal rigour to LNP admission applicants. Secondly, any exclusionary period – a period fixed by the court during which an applicant cannot be admitted, whether as LNP or AAS – commences from the date of the court order.

II. Material Facts 

In 2025, each of Ms Zenn Tan Jia Wei (“Ms Tan”), Ms Evangeline Koh Yi (“Ms Koh”), and Mr Zhang Yichao, David (“Mr Zhang”) applied to be admitted as an LNP of the Supreme Court of Singapore. Each had to submit affidavits in support of their respective applications. However, their applications had to be considered in light of instances of prior misconduct.  

III. Issues

The HC addressed three issues:
a) The principles governing admission as an LNP; 
b) The commencement date for an exclusionary period; and 
c) Each applicant’s suitability for LNP admission.

A. The Principles Governing Admission as an LNP

Prior to the new admissions framework, admission as an AAS involved a single application following a qualified person’s completion of their Part B examinations and a six-month-long Practice Training Period (“PTP”). The new admissions framework introduced a two-stage regime for admission as an AAS. In addition to completing the Part B examinations, aspiring lawyers must now first be admitted as an LNP and complete a twelve-month-long PTP before he/she may seek admission as an AAS. An applicant may serve the twelve-month-long PTP while concurrently applying for admission as an LNP. Completion of the PTP remains a prerequisite for admission as an AAS but not for admission as an LNP. In light of the new admissions framework, the HC considered: (i) how the courts should approach applications for admissions as LNPs; and (ii) when an applicant is said to be unfit for admission, what principles should the court apply in such assessments.

The HC held that the applicable principles for AAS admission cases should continue to apply to LNP admission applications. Section 82(1)(a) of the LPA provides that both LNPs and AAS are officers of the court. Further, both LNPs and AAS must satisfy the statutory requirement of good character, pursuant to sections 11B(1)(b) and 13(b) of the LPA, respectively. LNPs have a special role to play in the administration of justice, and owe an overriding duty to the court, the profession and the public. Thus, any missteps by an LNP, as a legal professional, may undermine public trust and confidence in the legal profession and the justice system as a whole. Therefore, the HC held that LNP admission applications should be assessed based on the same principles which applied to AAS admission applications.

As such, where competence and qualifications are not in question, a central principle was whether the applicant possesses suitable character for admission (the “Character Principle”). Another is where, despite there being no evidence that an applicant continues to face unresolved character issues at the time of application, the court, having regard to the nature of the applicant’s misconduct, determines that his/her admission as an LNP would risk undermining public trust and confidence in the legal profession and the administration of justice (the “Protective Principle”).

For the Character Principle, where misconduct material to the applicant’s fitness has been disclosed, the court weighs all relevant circumstances, including (i) the nature of the misconduct; (ii) the applicant’s conduct in the course of any investigation into it; (iii) the nature and extent of subsequent disclosures made in the application for admission; (iv) any evidence of remorse; and (v) any evidence of rehabilitation. Where significant time has passed since the wrongdoing, the last three factors carry particular weight as evidence of the applicant’s reform in the intervening period.

For the Protective Principle, the court considers factors including (i) the nature of the offence; (ii) the penalty already served by the applicant; (iii) the time elapsed since its completion; (iv) the applicant’s efforts to show that he/she can function as a member of the profession; and (v) whether the court is satisfied that the applicant can be entrusted to aid in the administration of justice without undermining public confidence. This principle applies only in exceptional circumstances where the misconduct is sufficiently grave, and is balanced against the redemptive principle that every individual should be given a second chance upon complete rehabilitation. 

B. The Commencement Date for an Exclusionary Period

Where the court determines that an applicant is not yet suitable for admission, the court may impose an exclusionary period, being a specified period that the court may impose upon the dismissal or withdrawal of an admission application, during which an applicant is barred from filing a fresh application for admission. The court may give effect to an exclusionary period through (a) adjourning the application (typically where the exclusionary period is less than six months; (b) permitting its withdrawal (for instance where a longer exclusionary period is needed); or (c) by dismissing the application (for instance where the court is not satisfied that the applicant can be said to have begun to truly appreciate the ethical consequences of his/her misconduct and the need for reform, let alone embarked on even the first steps of the journey towards rehabilitation, it will be appropriate to dismiss the application). The type of order used to give effect to an exclusionary period is a matter of principle, as the signalling effect of each of these orders is different. 

The predominant aim of imposing such periods is to facilitate rehabilitation by affording applicants the opportunity to defer their admission, reflect on their prior misconduct and address their character issues. It is not meant to punish applicants for their earlier mistakes, even if such an order may be felt or perceived to have a punitive effect. 

Under the previous admissions framework, any exclusionary period imposed by a court commenced from the date of the hearing when the court deemed an applicant unfit for admission as an AAS, i.e. from the date of the court’s order granting the applicant permission to withdraw the application or dismissing the application. 

The question now was whether the court should adopt the same approach for LNPs under the new admissions framework or instead require the exclusionary period to commence after completion of the PTP. This was because under the new admissions framework, given that an applicant might serve the 12-month-long PTP while concurrently applying for admission as an LNP, an exclusionary period running from the date of the court order could overlap with the PTP. In effect, the exclusionary period might cost an errant applicant little or no delay to their eventual admission. 

The HC ultimately held that an exclusionary period should, in general, commence from the date of the court order, regardless of whether the court decides to adjourn the matter, permit withdrawal of the application, or dismiss the application altogether. First, the HC rejected the argument that commencing exclusionary periods from the date of the court order meant that applicants would lack adequate time for rehabilitation. The HC noted that an applicant’s rehabilitative journey and their PTP are not mutually exclusive processes; there was nothing stopping an applicant from engaging in meaningful rehabilitative activities during his/her PTP. Additionally, rule 34(a) of the LPA Rules requires supervising solicitors to ensure that their practice trainees receive adequate training, including on the ethical and professional responsibilities of a legal practitioner. This gives them real-world exposure to ethical issues and a legal practitioner’s professional responsibilities, creating a foundation for meaningful reflection and rehabilitation. 

Second, the HC emphasised that the imposition of an exclusionary period is not meant to be punitive. Rather, it provides applicants adequate time and opportunity for rehabilitation. The exclusionary periods under the previous admissions framework commenced after completion of the PTP purely because of the statutory provisions: applicants could only apply for AAS admission after completing the PTP, and the courts would only be able to consider the imposition of exclusionary periods when dealing with the AAS applications thereafter. 

The HC also stressed that an LNP is not a lesser lawyer, and admission as an LNP should not be seen as less significant or of lower value than admission as an AAS. Admission as an LNP is a professional qualification carrying significant responsibilities, and an LNP is as much an officer of the court as an AAS. Thus, even if the court accepted that some “practical effect” or “sting” was necessary to provide impetus for an applicant’s rehabilitation, the fact that an applicant’s LNP admission would be delayed by at least the length of the exclusionary period would arguably already provide such practical consequence.

C. The Applicants’ Suitability for LNP Admission

(i) Ms Tan

Ms Tan disclosed certain instances of misconduct in her affidavits. The first was an act of plagiarism in a course assignment, where a substantial part of Ms Tan’s essay matched a previously published paper. Ms Tan admitted to referencing the paper but claimed to be unaware that she had to cite it, as she had already cited the primary sources referred to in the paper. 

The second, also concerning plagiarism in a take-home assignment, occurred in a different module. The script that was graded was flagged by Turnitin with a similarity score of 84%. Claiming that she was “shocked by the high index”, she decided to make amendments to her first submission (allowed by the rules). She explained the re-submission to the university as being due to her computer crashing. The second submission generated a similarity score of 71%. She was subsequently notified that she was suspected of having committed a plagiarism offence.

At the inquiry, Ms Tan attributed the high similarity index to copying materials verbatim from online sources and seniors’ notes. She explained that, after compiling her notes, she had forgotten to mark out the sections that needed further work, thus she had overlooked paraphrasing the material she had copied from online sources and seniors’ notes. She asserted that it was not her intention to commit academic dishonesty, and apologised for her “oversight” and “negligence”. Due to this being her second academic offence, Ms Tan’s case was referred to the university’s Board of Discipline, which found that she had committed plagiarism and imposed several penalties, including a suspension of her candidature at the university for a period of time (among other penalties). 

The third instance concerned the firm at which Ms Tan had been due to begin her PTP with a law firm. Following her suspension from university, Ms Tan requested that her PTP with the firm be deferred by informing the firm that she was on leave of absence from school due to personal reasons, instead of disclosing the true reason for her deferment request. However, she subsequently disclosed the full particulars of the incidents to a partner at the firm; the firm later terminated her training contract with immediate effect.

The HC found Ms Tan not presently a fit and proper person to be admitted as an LNP. With regard to her first instance of academic misconduct, the HC considered that there was no dishonesty involved, merely a lack of academic diligence. However, the HC found that Ms Tan’s second academic transgression demonstrated dishonesty and concerning character concerns. Having already been disciplined for the first academic offence, Ms Tan should have appreciated the importance of proper attribution in her work. Despite this, Ms Tan still copied substantial amounts of material from the work and notes submitted by students in previous years for the same module, which the university’s own students were prohibited from relying on, and relied on them in scripts she submitted for grading. The HC considered that she must have appreciated that she would be passing off the plagiarised material as her own. This was compounded by her attempt to conceal her actions through a false explanation to her university that her computer had crashed toward the end of the examination, causing her to submit the wrong copy. The HC found Ms Tan’s explanation to be untrue, and was instead a calculated attempt to avoid being caught for plagiarism.

Finally, she actively communicated an untruth to her firm about her reasons for her deferment request. This was despite having been sanctioned for two instances of plagiarism, and having undergone mandatory counselling and community service work designed to help her understand the gravity of her actions. It suggested that she had still failed to gain meaningful ethical insight into the importance of honesty.

Additionally, she had not been initially fully forthcoming in her initial affidavit to the court, only disclosing the full picture when directed to file a supplementary affidavit on the matter. Similarly, the HC noted that her eventual disclosures to her firm carried little weight in showing genuine rehabilitation or a willingness to take responsibility. Although Ms Tan claimed that she had disclosed the true reason for her deferment request out of a desire to be transparent and accountable, the HC found this unconvincing: the firm would likely have discovered the misrepresentation independently once Ms Tan had filed the relevant admission papers and/or if her LNP admission was delayed, so she was left with little practical choice but to disclose it.

However, the HC had observed genuine signs of rehabilitative progress. Following the three instances of misconduct, Ms Tan had voluntarily disclosed her offences to prospective employers when applying for her PTP; and around three years had passed since her last transgression, during which she completed her undergraduate studies without further incident. This suggested that she was beginning to take personal responsibility for her actions and was willing to confront her wrongdoings. Nonetheless, weighed against the totality of her conduct, the HC found that Ms Tan still had some way to go in her rehabilitation, and was thus at present not a fit and proper person to be admitted as an LNP. The HC therefore granted Ms Tan leave to withdraw her application, subject to an exclusionary period of 12 months.

(ii) Ms Koh

Ms Koh’s application concerned a single incident during her undergraduate studies, in which she had taken another student’s water bottle. After due investigation, the university found that she had dishonestly misappropriated the bottle and breached the university’s Code of Student Conduct. It issued a written reprimand, and also required her to attend counselling sessions. While she had disclosed this incident in her affidavit, throughout the investigations and up to the hearing of her application, Ms Koh consistently maintained that she had taken the bottle by mistake. 

The Court found Ms Koh presently not a fit and proper person to be admitted as an LNP. Her actions reflected a dishonesty almost invariably seen as suggestive of underlying character flaws that are incompatible with admission to the legal profession. This is because in the legal profession, clients repose their trust and confidence in lawyers in various ways, including entrusting them to handle their money. Lawyers are therefore expected to act with the utmost integrity and moral fortitude. This is also mandated by the nature of a lawyer’s vocation: to aid in the administration of justice. 

The HC considered Ms Koh’s lack of remorse or rehabilitation to be the most troubling aspect of her application. At every step of the investigation up to her application as an LNP, she refused to truly admit her wrongdoing, despite her university’s findings to the contrary. Her persistent refusal to take personal responsibility for her actions demonstrates a lack of ethical insight into her wrongdoing. Any purported acceptance of responsibility was qualified by the statement that she never intended to take the water bottle. Ms Koh cannot claim to have begun her journey of rehabilitation when she does not acknowledge that what she did was wrong in the first place. The HC thus dismissed Ms Koh’s application, imposing an exclusionary period of three years. 

(iii) Mr Zhang

Mr Zhang’s application arose from a single instance of academic misconduct during his undergraduate studies. Near the end of a quiz, Mr Zhang messaged a close friend for his answers to certain questions and, finding that their answers differed, changed his own answers to match that of his friend’s. Mr Zhang ultimately scored zero for the quiz as the examination software had rearranged the order of the options. When confronted by the university, Mr Zhang immediately confessed to the cheating, apologised and accepted that he deserved the low grade. The incident was recorded internally within the university and did not appear on his academic transcript, but Mr Zhang disclosed it in his supporting affidavit nonetheless. 

The HC found Mr Zhang to be a fit and proper person to be admitted as an LNP. The HC accepted, as it had in Ms Koh’s case, that his cheating reflected dishonesty, but also emphasised that the nature and circumstances of an applicant’s misconduct are not determinative of one’s fitness for admission as an LNP. The HC noted that there are other relevant factors to consider,  including the applicant’s conduct during the investigation, the nature and extent of his/her subsequent disclosures, and any evidence of remorse and rehabilitation. 

Mr Zhang was entirely cooperative once his academic transgression was raised: his unqualified confession to the university and his expression of remorse were factors in his favour. Further, his disclosures were full and frank, evidenced from his disclosure of the incident in his affidavit despite it not appearing on his university transcript. In the HC’s view, Mr Zhang’s candour demonstrated accountability and integrity, and indicated both remorse and rehabilitation. Mr Zhang had also identified the specific character flaws underlying his conduct and engaged in multiple activities designed to address these character defects and facilitate his character development, including pro bono and community service work. Mr Zhang also maintained a clean record in the roughly five years between the offence and his LNP application. 

Finding that rehabilitation had already been achieved and that the Protective Principle was not engaged, the HC held that no exclusionary period was necessary and allowed Mr Zhang’s admission.

IV. Lessons Learnt

Several practical lessons can be distilled from this case for prospective LNP applicants and law students alike. First, admission as an LNP is no lesser a qualification than admission as an AAS, and is not a mere procedural formality for becoming an AAS. Second, the contrasting outcomes in Mr Zhang’s and Ms Koh’s applications illustrate that an applicant’s conduct and actions even after the misconduct in question carry significant weight in the judicial assessment of the applicant’s rehabilitation progress and overall suitability for admission. Third, law students should be diligent in upholding academic integrity and honesty. This is especially so in an academic culture where the sharing of and reliance on seniors’ notes is commonplace.

Written by: Zachary Teo, 2nd Year LLB student, Singapore Management University Yong Pung How School of Law.

Reviewed by: Ong Ee Ing, Principal Lecturer, Singapore Management University Yong Pung How School of Law.