Objection at Long Call and Socmed postings
In a very recent long call, an objection was raised by the former employer of the petitioner that the petitioner was not a fit and proper person to be called as the petitioner had published untrue socmed postings about the firm, working conditions and how (badly) the petitioner was treated there. Instagram screenshots were produced. (The BC, State Bar and AGC maintained no objection to the call.)
The Court heard the objection and dismissed it. It was held that the necessary procedure was not followed, viz. a caveat under sec 17 LPA was not filed by the objector. The Judge also criticised the manner the objection was raised, on the eve of the hearing, that amounted to hijacking the solemn long call ceremony to ventilate private employment grievances.
On the merits, the Court held that a private employment dispute does not equate to a lack of “good character” under sec 11(1)(b) LPA, as the “good character” requirement assesses a candidate’s fitness, honesty, and integrity to practise law, rather than serving as an unrestricted moral inquiry or a tool to police employment relationships.
The petition was allowed. Happy ending to the petitioner!
Note/Lesson: Whilst the objection was dismissed, thankfully and rightfully, this however is a cautionary tale for pupils to be cautious when posting on socmed. Socmed does not forget and follows you around.
Long call is an important legal and ceremonial gateway into the profession. It is one to be savoured and remembered fondly. You do not want your long call to be remembered for the wrong reasons.
This article was first shared by R. Jayabalan on LinkedIn.
