Candidate attorneys decry exam

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 raised concerns about how the exams were conducted and deviated from the syllabus, which they allege resulted in their poor performance.

The candidates, who asked to remain anonymous, said that after commencing the exams, they 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.

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

The group said despite alerting the LPC on numerous occasions of the challenges experienced with the paper, they were told that marking was continuing and that their concerns would be addressed in the next exam.

“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 exam was started last week on the Change.org website by Tina Mahlanza, and to date has as many as 1629 signatures. In the petition, she expressed similar concerns that on commencing the exam, the invigilators had directed them to question 11, where 11.2 was to be amended.

Mahlanza 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.

LPC spokesperson Kabelo Letebele said the LPC was aware of the complaints. However, he 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 them to earn marks for each question.

“The LPC discourages candidates from relying on past papers and previous answer guidelines. As the format of the paper is slightly amended, the candidates then complained 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 practicerelated.”

Letebele said there were no lastminute 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.