According to the Straits Times news report “Lawyer M. Ravi dropped as panellist because of his medical condition: Law Society” – “But given current developments including his medical condition, the conference was too close for the governing council to continue to responsibly include him as a panellist.”
Since the conference is nine days away from the Law Society’s announcement today – on what basis did they decide that Mr M Ravi would certainly not be certified as “fit to practice” as a lawyer by his psychiatrist by then?
Since the Law Society said just two days ago – “The society criticised Mr Robertson for not contacting it to clarify its position before making his comment.
It suggested Mr Robertson should have acquainted himself with the facts first and allowed the society to respond to his allegation before publishing it.
“He is either totally unaware of or ignoring the objective facts that underlie the society’s decision,” it added.” – did it by the same token – contact his psychiatrist to clarify before making their decision?
Is speaking as a panelist in a conference as onerous as practicing as a lawyer?
Many people (including members of his law firm) may have paid the conference fee of almost $300 with the main purpose of listening to Mr M Ravi – as I understand that this is the first time that he is being invited by the Law Society to speak on “Constitutional Law” – an area which he is widely known and respected internationally for his human rights legal activities over the last 18 years or so – with invitations to speak at international conferences in about 35 countries.
Will it consider giving a refund of the conference fees to these registrants, if they want to cancel now?
Win battles lose war
TRS Contributor