People can and do change (Part 2)?

Anita Jowitt. The Impact of Plagiarism on Admission to the Bar: Re Liveri [2006] QCA 152. Journal of South Pacific Law, (2007) 11(2): 213 – 217.

“In deciding whether this particular applicant’s history of academic misconduct should lead to a decision that the applicant was unfit to be admitted to the bar, the court considered:”

• the seriousness of the plagiarism;
• the number of times that plagiarism had occurred;
• the age of the applicant; and
• the applicant’s unwillingness to acknowledge the seriousness of her misconduct.

“In relation to the last point, the court considered that ‘lack of genuine insight into its gravity and significance… is at least as significant as the academic dishonesty itself.’”

“. . . if an applicant chooses not to disclose wrongdoing, decisions as to fitness to practice will be made with incomplete information. A failure to disclose a history of academic misconduct in itself is dishonesty which may render someone unfit to practice.”

Mark Thomas. Admission as a Lawyer: the Fearful Spectre of Academic Misconduct. QUT Law Review, (2013) 13(1): 73 – 99.

Reasoning of the Court:

• P₁: X was subjected to stress and X cheated.

• P₂: Lawyers are subjected to stress.

• ∴ X will cheat if X becomes a lawyer.

• ∴ X is unfit to practise.

“. . . In determining whether any suitability matter is of such consequence as to warrant a refusal to admit or deferral of admission, the Court is empowered to exercise a discretion to admit an applicant notwithstanding the existence of a suitability matter ‘because of the circumstances relating to the matter.’”

“. . . there are many shades of ‘academic misconduct,’ more subtle that the major/minor binary underpinning most university policies, and that the circumstances must be examined to determine whether the an applicant’s specific actions amount to substantial misconduct, demonstrating unfitness to practice.”

“The sometimes minimalist approach to documentation adopted in the educative mode of dealing with minor misconduct can present difficulties in framing appropriate submissions when a student applies for admission. As for any court proceeding, submissions must be made on the basis of facts in evidence. Despite the intellectual discourse surrounding the nature of authorship and postmodern interpretations of writing as ‘intertextual’, submissions which rely on postmodern theories of text liberated from their authors will find no sympathy with the court.”

Michelle Evans. Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct by Law Students: the Importance of Prevention over Detection. International Journal of Law & Education, 2013 17(2): 99 – 121

” . . . the writer will argue that instead of focusing on a ‘catching offenders’ approach, Law Schools should focus on prevention1through educating students about academic misconduct. In other words, the writer’s argument is that Law Schools should incorporate plagiarism prevention into their teaching practices.”

“Plagiarism, and other forms of academic misconduct are serious breaches that can impact on a law student’s future admission and legal career. . . . These serious consequences warrant a preventative, rather than ‘catch and punish’ approach, with the latter, in any event, having been shown to have limited effectiveness. . .”

“This paper has offered some suggestions for Law Schools and academics that may assist to prevent academic misconduct. . . .”