Scholarships Applications Misconduct Policy

1. General Principles

1.1. The Inner Temple is not prepared to award scholarships or internship awards to candidates who have been proven to have made a fraudulent application, have committed plagiarism or have committed other acts of misconduct with the intention of placing themselves or a different individual at an unfair advantage.

1.2. The Inner Temple reserves the right to:

• Request additional information to assist in verifying an application (this may include academic transcripts or seeking verification through third parties such as referees, academic providers or employers).
• Suspend an application whilst an allegation is investigated.
• Reduce marks to 0 for specific tasks where misconduct took place.
• Reject an application where the applicant has shown themselves to have committed misconduct for their own benefit, or the benefit of others.

1.3. This policy sets out the measures taken to prevent misconduct taking place, as well as setting out the procedure to be followed where such activity is suspected.

3. Scope

3.1. This policy applies to Bar Course Scholarships, GDL Scholarships, Pupillage Awards, Internship Award Applications and Disability Awards.

3.2. This policy applies to all parts of the application process including:

• The application form
• Additional forms, including contextual recruitment information and financial information.
• Any information provided to the Inner Temple, separately from provided forms (e.g. via email)
• Pre-interviews tasks and assessments (where applicable)
• The interview

4. Procedures in place to prevent and discourage misconduct

Application Form

4.1. As part of the Scholarship Declaration candidates are required to confirm in their application form “that all the information contained in my application and any other information provided in support of my application is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.”

4.2. As part of the Scholarships Declaration candidates must be required to confirm that they understand, if an award is made, it is conditional on the adherence to the terms of the Scholarships Declaration.

4.3. A link should be made to this policy on the application form, so that applicants are informed of the consequences of not doing so.

4.4. Where the scholarships declaration is not accepted the application will not be valid.

Additional Forms

4.5. The same statement, and link to this policy, should also be provided on any additional forms which candidates are asked complete which:

1. Are used as part of the assessment process or/and
2. Are used to assess how much financial assistance to provide.

Interview 

4.6. Before attending an interview, the following instructions must be made clear to candidates:

• They should not discuss any of the questions asked at interview with any other candidate. This includes sharing information with individuals who are intending to pass that information to other candidates and sharing or posting information about questions on social media and online.  
• Where a legal cases exercise is part of the process they:
  • Are not permitted to use the internet, or any textbooks, to conduct research during allocated reading time.
  • Are not permitted to discuss or share notes with any other candidate completing the task, during or after the legal case exercise has completed.
  • Are not permitted to use the internet or software application, including any AI application, unless it has been expressly agreed in writing by the Scholarships Team as part of a reasonable adjustment. In these cases, the applicant will have received an email detailing what has been agreed prior to interview.
• They are not permitted to discuss any details of the case or task, or share any associated materials with any other candidates. This includes sharing information with individuals who are intending to pass that information to other candidates and sharing or posting information on social media and online.
• It should be made clear that if any of the above are not followed, this may lead to the disqualification of an application, or the withdrawal of any offer made.

Where a legal case exercise or other pre-interview task is taking place, the following measures should be taken:

4.7. Where taking place in-person: 

• Candidates will be provided with instructions as part of their invite briefing and on arrival.
• Candidates who complete the task will do so in the presence of an invigilator, who will be instructed to ensure that all rules are followed.
• The invigilator must be provided with a list of any technology or software applications that have been agreed as part of a reasonable adjustment.

4.8. Where an interview is taking place online:

• Candidates will be provided with instructions as part of their invite briefing and the materials via a timed email.
• Online proctoring software will be used during the pre-interview task. Candidates will be sent information about how this will work in advance. Where the software identifies a possible case of misconduct, the evidence will always be reviewed by a member of staff to determine whether this appears to be the case.
• Staff reviewing the data collected by proctoring software will be aware of any reasonable adjustments that have been agreed.

5. Procedures to follow where a candidate is suspected of misconduct

Concerns that arise outside of interview day

5.1. If a volunteer panellist suspects that any part of the written application, or accompanying information is fraudulent or plagiarised, the Scholarships Team should be contacted as soon as possible via scholarships@innertemple.org.uk. The Scholarships Manager should be informed of the reasons for the allegation and provided with any relevant evidence.

5.2. If a staff member has cause to suspect any part of the written application or accompanying forms are fraudulent or plagiarised or, if a staff member monitoring the scholarships inbox receives an allegation from a volunteer or candidate, both the Scholarships Manager, Senior Manager (Scholarships and Outreach) and Director of Education should be informed as soon as possible.

Concerns that arise during interview day

5.3. Where a staff member or volunteer has a concern on the interview day, more immediate action is required to ensure that it can be addressed appropriately.

Legal Case Study

5.4. If, during the course of the case study, an invigilator notices any candidate acting against the instructions provided, the invigilator should remind the candidate of the instructions and request that that action be stopped.

5.5. The invigilator should immediately contact the staff member in charge on the day. In doing so they should follow the procedure below:

• The invigilator must ensure that under no circumstances are any of the candidates completing the task left unattended and should ensure that other candidates are not disturbed. WhatsApp will be monitored constantly and messaging staff on a private message is advised.
• In the message they should inform the staff member that there has been a breach of the instructions provided. They should indicate whether the breach is ongoing (e.g. the candidate is refusing to follow the instructions)
• The invigilator should also note down the following as soon as possible:
  • Details of what was said and observed.
  • The time at which this took place.
  • The start time and end time of the Legal Case Exercise for the candidate

5.6. The member of staff in charge on the day, will attend and may speak to the candidate in question but care must be taken to ensure that no undue pressure be placed on the candidate where allegations are unproven. Providing that the candidate has followed instructions after the first reminder, they will be allowed to complete the task without disturbance.

Interviews

5.7. If, during the course of the interview, panellists have cause to suspect that aspects of a candidate’s application are plagiarised or fraudulent, accusations should not be made during the course of the interview. The panellist may note down reasons for suspecting misconduct during the interview and inform the Scholarship Team after the interview has finished.

Procedures to follow when investigating an alleged case of misconduct 

5.8. When an allegation is brought to the attention of the Scholarships and Outreach Team, the Chair of Scholarships and Outreach Committee should be informed. The Chair of the Scholarships and Outreach Committee will decide whether the evidence is substantial enough to warrant further investigation. No allegation should be accepted without further investigation.

5.9. If a decision is made to investigate further, the candidate who has had the allegation made against them should be informed. This correspondence should include:

• Details of the allegation
• A description of timescales, including when the candidate can expect to hear the outcome of the investigation.
• Details of any changes this may have to the status of the candidate’s application (for example, the suspension of an application)
• A request for a statement in response to the allegation, which they should return to scholarships@innertemple.org.uk within 14 days. If a response is not received in this time, the application will be rejected, and any offer made rescinded.
• This policy should be attached to the email.

5.10. An Investigating Officer should be appointed, who should ideally be a member of the Scholarships and Outreach Committee. The Investigating Officer must not have been involved in the assessment of the candidate at any stage.

5.11. Within seven days, the Investigating Officer should outline what additional evidence they would like to request. This may include, though not exclusively:

• Statements from the individual making the investigation.
• Statements from members of staff, interview panellists and student ambassadors who witnessed or were involved in the incident.
• Statement from referees, academic institutions or employers
• Educational transcripts

5.12. The Investigating Officer will consider the extent to which the candidate intended to unfairly place themselves, or others, at an advantage and whether that action resulted in placing themselves, or others, at an unfair advantage.

5.13. The result of the Investigating Officer should be communicated to the candidate within 28 days of an allegation being made. If there are any delays to this process the candidate must be informed and provided with an explanation.

6. Outcome of an investigation

6.1. After considering the evidence, the Investigating Officer may decide:

• The evidence is not substantial enough to suggest that misconduct occurred. In this case the application will be reinstated.
• That there is evidence to suggest that misconduct occurred, but that that there is no evidence to suggest that this was knowingly carried out with the intention of placing themselves, or another, at an advantage. In these cases, the score given to the candidate in the section of application affected by this misconduct will be reduced to 0.
• That there is substantial evidence to suggest that misconduct occurred, knowingly and with intent, and placed the candidate, or another, at an advantage. In these cases, the candidate will be disqualified.

6.2. Once the investigation has been concluded and an outcome decided, the Chair of the Scholarships and Outreach Committee should write to the candidate informing them of the decision and what the impact on their application will be. Where any candidate has their score adjusted, or their application is disqualified, they should be provided with the details of the Scholarships Appeals Policy.

6.3. If the candidate is already a member of the Inn, and is found to be in breach of the Scholarships Misconduct Policy, they may also be subject to disciplinary proceedings through the Inner Temple Complaints Policy.