Zenn Tan Jia Wei

Three applicants, Ms Zenn Tan Jia Wei (HC/LNP 138/2025), Ms Evangeline Koh Yi (HC/LNP 172/2025) and Mr Zhang Yichao, David (HC/LNP 360/2025), applied under s 11A of the Legal Profession Act 1966 to be admitted as Lawyers (Non-practitioner). Under the two-stage admissions framework introduced in 2023, a candidate must first be admitted as a Lawyer (Non-practitioner) and may serve the 12-month practice training period at the same time. These were among the first such applications opposed on character grounds, and the Attorney-General, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education and the Law Society took part.

Ms Tan had two plagiarism findings at NUS. On the second, she sent a fresh script with an untrue explanation that her computer had crashed, and she was suspended. She later told the law firm where she was to train that she was on leave for personal reasons at home, and the firm ended her training contract once it learned the truth. Ms Koh was found by SMU to have taken another student's water bottle, as captured on CCTV, but maintained that it was a mistake caused by fatigue. Mr Zhang copied a friend's answers in a first-year quiz in 2020, confessed when interviewed, and received zero marks.

1. Whether the principles governing admission of advocates and solicitors apply to applications for admission as a Lawyer (Non-practitioner)
2. From what date an exclusionary period imposed on such an applicant should run
3. Whether each applicant was presently a fit and proper person to be admitted, and if not, what exclusionary period was appropriate

The judge held that both kinds of lawyer are officers of the court who must be of good character, so the same character and protective principles apply. On timing, the Attorney-General and the Institute argued that the period should start after practice training so that it has a real effect. The judge rejected this. Rehabilitation can and should happen during training, which itself includes supervised ethics training. Exclusionary periods are rehabilitative, not punitive, and periods under the old framework ran after training only because the statute required it. A split based on whether an applicant intends to qualify as an advocate and solicitor would also be uncertain and unworkable. Past cases remain broad guidance on length.

For Ms Tan, the first plagiarism showed a lack of diligence, but the second involved copying from forbidden sources followed by a false explanation, and the untruth to the law firm showed she had not learned the importance of honesty. She had not fully disclosed that untruth at first. Her later disclosures to other firms and the time since her last academic offence were positive, and her conduct was less serious than in earlier cases where periods of 18 months and two years were imposed.

For Ms Koh, the court accepted SMU's findings, which she largely did not contest on the footage. Theft shows dishonesty, and her qualified acceptance of responsibility, while still denying any wrongdoing, showed no remorse or insight, so dismissal rather than withdrawal was appropriate.

For Mr Zhang, the cheating was dishonest, but he confessed fully, disclosed more than the records required, kept a clean record for around five years and took concrete steps to address his flaws, so no further deferment was needed.

The court held that any exclusionary period should generally run from the date of the court order, not from the end of the practice training period. Ms Tan was given leave to withdraw her application subject to an exclusionary period of 12 months. Ms Koh's application was dismissed with an exclusionary period of three years. Mr Zhang's application was allowed and he was admitted without any exclusionary period.