Candidate attorneys decry ‘irregular’ exam conditions

Candidate attorneys decry ‘irregular’ exam conditions

Prospective candidate attorneys in Gauteng have decried alleged irregular exam conditions which they claim have placed their future employment prospects at risk.

A large number of candidate attorneys who sat for their attorney’s exam paper 3 on March 14, have come out to raise concerns about the manner in which the exams were conducted and a deviation from the syllabus, which they allege resulted in their poor performance.

The candidates, who asked to remain anonymous, said after commencing the exams, they soon realised that despite the Legal Practice Council (LPC) advising them to focus solely on the syllabus, there were new terms included and a new structure to which they had not been alerted.

To make matters worse, they said they were informed of an amendment to the question paper, which invigilators took an inordinate amount of time to explain.

“It took us a long time to go through the amendment and in some cases we had invigilators explaining things to us for 30 minutes. However, they did not even afford us extra time despite knowing how long and difficult this paper is.

“The LPC even held a webinar on March 1 explaining the exam preparations to us and even then they told us to just focus on the syllabus, which is available on their website, but that paper was impossible to pass,” said one candidate.

The group said despite reaching out to the LPC on numerous occasions to alert them of the challenges experienced with the paper, they were told that marking was ongoing and their concerns would be addressed in the next exam.

However, for many who are nearing the end of their articles contracts, they said the delay in addressing the exams would result in them joining the unemployment line.

“The fact of the matter is that most of us are nearing the end of our two-year articles and if we are not done with the exams, none of the companies we are working for will wait for us to redo this.”

As many as 3 000 candidate attorneys sat for the exam nationally.

A petition on the irregular exam conditions was started last week on the Change.org website by Tina Mahlanza, and to date has as many as 1629 signatures.

In the petition, Mahlanza expressed similar concerns that on commencing the exam, the invigilators had directed them to question 11, where 11.2 was to be amended.

The candidate explained that although the definition of a Champerty agreement was provided, with candidates instructed to write down the definition, they realised that different techniques were used in the exam venues for giving the candidates a definition.

“The majority of candidates are aggrieved by the conduct of the LPC as the invigilators were either reading the definition too fast or were inaudible. The structure of the exam reflects as if the LPC is seeking to confuse and mislead candidates, as opposed to testing their knowledge on an attorney’s conduct and ethics,” read the petition.

LPC spokesperson Kabelo Letebele said the LPC was aware of the complaints from some of the candidates. However, it said it should be noted that the candidates who had complained had not raised any substantial issues, and simply stated that, in their opinion, the exams were unfair for them, which was not true.

Letebele said the exam format was amended to assist candidates and make it easier for candidates to earn marks for each question.

If anything, he said candidates had relied on the fact that the exam papers were not the same as in previous years.

“The LPC strongly discourages candidates from relying on past papers and previous answer guidelines for this reason. As the format of the paper is slightly amended, the candidates then complain of unfairness.

“The format of the paper changed in that questions were posed differently, but the notion of applying theory to practice while understanding prescribed legislation was prevalent throughout the exam, which is always practice-related.”

The spokesperson said there were no last-minute changes to the papers. However, it was identified that there was a term, which was in the syllabus, that candidates may not have recognised.

Despite this, he said not all candidates had completed the PVT structured coursework before writing the exams, and this word may have posed a challenge, but once the definition was presented to candidates, this would have assisted them.

“Candidates were not given differing examples at different venues. (It) should not have been challenging for candidates to note and write down a simple definition, that contained a few sentences, and was presented to assist them.

“After investigation, it has been found that many of the concerns raised by candidates lack merit, and some are politically motivated.

“The LPC is mandated to protect the public, and ensure that candidates only enter the profession when they are found to be competent to do so.

“No examinations will be re-run for this sitting, and we now move into the marking and moderation process,” Letebele added.

The Star

[email protected]