Expelled from University for Exam Cheating in Kuwait: How Can a Student Challenge the Decision?

Introduction: One Decision, a Whole Future at Stake

It usually starts with an email or a text message. The Deanship of Student Affairs, or a disciplinary committee, informs a student that he or she has been expelled, suspended for a term, or had a course grade cancelled with a final warning, because an invigilator wrote in a report that the student was caught cheating. Within moments, years of study, effort and tuition turn into a disciplinary file. The consequences often reach much further than the classroom: a government scholarship may be terminated, a student allowance stopped, a transfer to another university blocked, and a future employer may ask questions that are difficult to answer.

Cheating is a serious offence, and universities have genuine authority to discipline students in order to protect the integrity of academic qualifications and fairness between students. That authority, however, is not unlimited. It is bounded by the university's own regulations, by the basic guarantees of a fair investigation and the right of defence, by the principle of proportionality between the offence and the penalty, and ultimately by judicial review. A student who understands those limits early, ideally from the first summons to an investigation, is in a far stronger position than one who only starts thinking about them after the decision has been issued.

This article explains, in practical terms, the legal nature of an expulsion decision based on cheating, the key difference between a public university and a private one, the safeguards that must surround the investigation, the internal grievance, and then the annulment action before the Administrative Circuit together with a request to suspend enforcement and a claim for compensation. We also look closely at the evidence that typically appears in these files: classroom cameras, invigilation reports, phones and smartwatches, and online proctoring software. For a wider overview of how education is regulated in Kuwait, see our article on Education Law in Kuwait: public, private and university education.

The Short Answer

If you have been expelled or otherwise penalised for alleged cheating, the essential steps are:

• Identify the type of institution first. A decision by a public university or by the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training is, as a rule, an administrative decision subject to review by the Administrative Circuit under Law No. 20 of 1981. A private university's relationship with its students is, as a rule, contractual, governed by the enrolment agreement and the university's regulations, and disputes generally go to the civil courts, although some situations are debated.
• Ask for a copy of the decision and of the investigation record. A short email is not enough; the reasons and the procedure followed are what your grievance will be built on.
• File a written grievance immediately with the authority that issued the decision, or the body designated by the regulations, within the time limits set by law and by the regulations. Do not wait.
• Check the safeguards. Were you told what you were accused of? Were you heard? Did you see the evidence? Was the decision taken by the competent body? Is the penalty proportionate?
• If the grievance is rejected or ignored, an annulment action may be filed before the Administrative Circuit, together with an urgent request to suspend enforcement and, where justified, a claim for compensation, within the time limits set by law.
• Preserve evidence. Exam schedules, names of witnesses, your correspondence with the instructor and the deanship, and anything that documents your health or the conditions in the exam room.

Speed is decisive. Grievance and litigation deadlines are statutory, and missing them can extinguish the right to challenge. The academic term will not wait either.

The Legal and Regulatory Framework

Public universities and public educational bodies

Kuwait University, the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training, and similar public educational institutions are public-law entities. They are governed by their establishing legislation and by the regulations issued under it, including student affairs regulations, student disciplinary rules and examination rules. When such a body issues an individual, final decision that creates, modifies or terminates a student's legal position, such as expulsion, suspension, exclusion from an exam or cancellation of a course, that decision is, in principle, an administrative decision in the sense recognised by administrative courts.

Law No. 20 of 1981, which established a circuit within the Court of First Instance to hear administrative disputes, defines the Administrative Circuit's jurisdiction. That jurisdiction includes applications to annul final administrative decisions and claims for compensation arising from them, subject to specific exclusions that do not concern student discipline. The same law regulates the prior administrative grievance, the time limits for filing suit, and the effect of a grievance on those time limits. For the general framework, see our articles on challenging administrative decisions in Kuwait: annulment and compensation and our comprehensive guide to administrative litigation in Kuwait.

Private universities

Private universities in Kuwait are established and operate under the legislation governing private universities and are supervised by the Private Universities Council in matters of licensing, accreditation and quality. The student's relationship with a private university, however, is contractual at its core: an enrolment or admission agreement under which the student pays fees and undertakes to respect the regulations, and the university undertakes to deliver its accredited programmes in accordance with its published rules. The student code of conduct and the academic integrity policy become part of that relationship once the student accepts them at registration.

It follows that a private university's expulsion decision is not, as a rule, an administrative decision, and a dispute over it is generally brought before the civil courts on the basis of breach of contract or abuse of right, under the Civil Code, Law No. 67 of 1980. There is, nonetheless, a debate in legal writing and case law about whether some decisions of private universities, particularly those connected to the award of recognised qualifications or the application of binding general decisions issued by the supervising authority, may have a special character. That question cannot be settled in an article; the competent court decides it on the facts of each case and the nature of the decision challenged.

The university's own regulations come first

Whatever the type of institution, the internal disciplinary regulations and the examination rules are the first point of reference. They determine what counts as cheating or attempted cheating, who investigates, who may impose each penalty, what scale of penalties exists, and what internal appeal route is available. The first practical task for the student or the student's lawyer is therefore to obtain the version of the regulations that was in force on the date of the incident, not only the version currently published online, because regulations are amended from time to time.

Where criminal law comes in

Ordinary exam cheating is a disciplinary matter handled by the university. Some forms of misconduct, however, may go further and fall within the Penal Code, Law No. 16 of 1960: impersonating another student to sit an exam in their place, forging a document or certificate, or leaking exam papers by an employee entrusted with them. Unlawful access to a university's electronic systems to alter grades or obtain questions may fall within Law No. 63 of 2015 on Combating Information Technology Crimes. In such cases the disciplinary track is independent of the criminal track; the two may run in parallel, each under its own rules. For more on the criminal dimension, see our article on cybercrime law in Kuwait.

The Substantive Rules: When Is an Expulsion Lawful, and When Is It Flawed?

The elements of a disciplinary administrative decision

An administrative judge examines an expulsion decision through the classic elements of an administrative act: competence, form and procedure, grounds, subject matter, and purpose. A defect in any one of them may be enough for annulment.

• Lack of competence: the decision was issued by a body that is not authorised to impose that penalty under the regulations, for example a college dean imposing final expulsion where the regulations reserve it to a disciplinary board or to the university president, or an instructor imposing a disciplinary penalty personally instead of referring the matter.
• Defects of form and procedure: the student was not notified of the charge, was not investigated, the investigating committee or disciplinary board was not properly constituted, or the decision was not reasoned where the regulations require reasons.
• Defective grounds: the alleged facts were not sufficiently proven, or were proven but do not amount to cheating as defined in the regulations, for example penalising a student for a switched-off phone kept in a bag placed in the area designated for bags.
• Defective subject matter: a penalty was imposed that the regulations do not provide for, or that exceeds what the regulations allow for that offence.
• Misuse of power: the decision pursued an aim other than the educational interest, such as settling a personal dispute between the student and a faculty member. This is usually difficult to prove and requires strong circumstantial evidence.

Safeguards of the disciplinary investigation

University discipline, like any disciplinary process, rests on basic safeguards that administrative courts treat as general principles applicable even where the regulations are silent. The most important are:

• Notice of the charge: the student must know clearly what act is alleged, when and where it occurred, and what the evidence is. A vague accusation such as "breach of examination rules" without specifics does not allow a defence.
• A hearing: the student must have a real opportunity to give an account and explain the incident, recorded in minutes that the student signs or in which any refusal to sign is noted.
• Right of defence and access to evidence: the student should be able to see the evidence relied on, such as the invigilator's report, photographs or a similarity report, and to present evidence and witnesses. Some regulations allow a parent or a chosen companion to attend; this depends on the text of the regulations.
• Impartiality: one person should not act as accuser, investigator and judge, for example the instructor who wrote the incident report also conducting the investigation, recommending the penalty and voting on it.
• Reasons: the decision should state the facts found and the grounds for the penalty, so that the student can understand it and a court can review it.
• Proportionality: the penalty must correspond to the seriousness and circumstances of the offence and to the student's record.

Proportionality: not every act of cheating justifies expulsion

Cheating comes in degrees. There is a real difference between a student who brought notes into the hall and used them, a student who forgot a switched-off phone in a pocket and never touched it, a student who glanced at a neighbour's paper for a moment, and a student who organised a network to leak questions or sent someone else to sit the exam. University regulations typically set out a graduated scale of penalties, beginning with a warning and cancellation of the exam or course, moving to suspension for a term, and reaching final expulsion only in the most serious cases or on repetition.

Administrative courts have taken the approach that the authority's discretion in choosing a disciplinary penalty, while real, is limited by the prohibition of manifest excess, meaning an obvious mismatch between the gravity of the offence and the type and severity of the penalty. If the institution chose the harshest penalty on the scale for a minor act, for a student with no prior record and in mitigating circumstances, the decision is exposed to annulment. This review is nonetheless a review of outer limits: the judge does not substitute his own view of the most suitable penalty, but intervenes where the disproportion is manifest.

Attempted cheating and possession of prohibited items

Many regulations penalise not only actual cheating but attempted cheating, or even mere possession of a prohibited item in the exam hall, such as a phone, an earpiece or written notes. Interpretation of the text then becomes crucial. Does the regulation punish bare possession, or does it require an intention to use? Was there a designated place to leave devices, and were students told about it? If bare possession is an offence, the student can still argue proportionality and the absence of intent to reduce the penalty. If use or attempted use is required, the university must prove it rather than presume it.

Burden and standard of proof

As the accusing party, the university bears the burden of proving the offence. A disciplinary decision must rest on facts sufficiently established from material actually in the file, not on suspicion or impression. The disciplinary standard is not, however, the criminal standard. An administrative judge asks whether the conclusion reached was reasonably drawn from evidence capable of supporting it, rather than re-weighing every item of evidence as a criminal court would.

The private university perspective

With a private university, lawfulness is examined through the contract and the regulations: did the university follow the procedures it promised in its own rules, did it exercise its disciplinary right in good faith and without abuse, and did the decision cause harm that warrants compensation or reinstatement? Under the Civil Code, exercising a right is unlawful where it is intended to harm another, where the interest pursued is so slight as to be wholly out of proportion to the harm caused, or where the interest is itself unlawful. In substance these tests are close to the proportionality principle applied in administrative law.

Principles Settled in Case Law

Among the principles settled by the Court of Cassation and administrative courts in disciplinary disputes generally, which apply in principle to student discipline by public educational bodies:

• The Court of Cassation has consistently held that an administrative decision must rest on a valid ground that justifies it, and that the administrative judge may review both the existence of the facts relied on and their legal characterisation.
• The courts have consistently held that the administration's discretion in choosing a disciplinary penalty remains subject to judicial review where the penalty is manifestly excessive or plainly disproportionate to the offence.
• The courts have consistently held that investigative safeguards, including confronting the accused with the allegations and allowing a defence, are fundamental guarantees whose omission affects the validity of the disciplinary decision.
• The courts have consistently held that disciplinary liability is independent of criminal liability, so that the closing of a criminal file or an acquittal does not necessarily bar disciplinary action, unless the acquittal is based on the non-occurrence of the facts themselves, which depends on the reasons of the criminal judgment.
• The courts have consistently held that suspension of an administrative decision requires two conditions: seriousness, meaning the challenge appears on its face to rest on grounds likely to lead to annulment, and urgency, meaning enforcement would produce consequences that are difficult to reverse.
• The courts have consistently held that the administration's liability to compensate rests on fault consisting in the unlawfulness of the decision, harm to the person concerned, and a causal link, and that annulment does not automatically entail compensation if harm is not proven.

Methodological note: the principles above are stated in general terms to summarise settled trends in disputes over administrative and disciplinary decisions. We have deliberately not cited specific case numbers or dates. Applying any principle to a particular case depends on its facts and on the university regulations in force at the time, and the final assessment belongs to the competent court.

Practical Steps and Documents

Stage one: the moment of the accusation in the exam hall

Many files are effectively decided in the first few minutes. If an invigilator accuses you of cheating during the exam, stay calm and do not destroy any paper or delete anything from your phone, because destruction will be read against you. Ask politely that your own version be recorded in the report too. Do not sign statements you did not make or an admission you did not give. If you do sign, write next to your signature that it acknowledges receipt, not agreement, where the report contains things you dispute. As soon as you leave, write down the names of the invigilators and nearby students, the room and seat numbers, and the time.

Stage two: the summons to investigation

• Ask in writing for the charge to be specified and for access to the evidence you will face.
• Read the applicable regulations carefully: the definition of cheating, the penalties, the competent body and your rights during the investigation.
• Prepare one consistent, truthful account. Contradictions between what you said in the hall and what you say in the investigation can hurt you more than any piece of evidence.
• Bring supporting material: statements from classmates, a medical report if your health played a role, proof that the paper was not yours or was unrelated to the course, proof that the phone was switched off.
• Put mitigating factors clearly on the record, such as a clean record, strong academic performance and personal circumstances, because they bear directly on proportionality.
• Ask for a copy of the minutes of your statement once signed.

Stage three: after the decision

• Request an official copy of the decision and record the date you were notified, since time limits usually run from the date of knowledge of the decision.
• Request a copy of the full investigation file, including the incident report, any technical reports and the committee's recommendation.
• Submit a reasoned written grievance to the competent body under the regulations and the law, and keep proof of the filing date, such as an incoming stamp or an electronic receipt.
• Follow up. An express rejection, or silence, has legal consequences for the time limits for challenge that are set by law.
• Do not wait for the end of the term or for results before deciding; consult a lawyer early.

How to write an effective grievance

A good grievance is not merely a plea for sympathy; it is a short legal memorandum. It should include the student's details, the decision challenged and the date of notification; a brief account of the facts as they happened; the grounds of objection in order, such as breach of the right of defence, lack of proof, the facts not amounting to cheating, lack of competence or disproportion; and clear requests, namely withdrawal or annulment of the decision or, in the alternative, replacement by a lighter penalty. Humanitarian circumstances can be included, but it is the legal arguments that remain on file if the dispute reaches court. For grievance rules generally, see our article on administrative lawsuits and grievances in Kuwait.

Stage four: annulment and suspension of enforcement

If the grievance is rejected expressly or implicitly, an annulment action may be filed before the Administrative Circuit of the Court of First Instance within the time limits set by Law No. 20 of 1981, including an urgent request to suspend the decision pending judgment on the merits. The suspension request usually rests on the argument that continued enforcement of the expulsion will cost the student terms that cannot be recovered, may end a scholarship, or prevent timely graduation, all harms that are difficult to reverse. For the general nature of urgent requests, see our article on urgent (summary) proceedings in Kuwait.

Stage five: compensation

A student may claim compensation for harm caused by an unlawful decision, either alongside the annulment request or separately as the law permits. Harm may be material, such as fees paid, delayed graduation and lost job or scholarship opportunities, or moral, such as damage to reputation and psychological distress. The amount is for the court to assess. For more on moral damages, see compensation for moral damage under Kuwaiti law.

Documents you will need

• Civil ID, proof of enrolment and academic transcript.
• The penalty decision and proof of the date you were notified.
• The summons to investigation and the minutes of your statement, if obtained.
• The incident or invigilation report, if available.
• The regulations in force on the date of the incident, the examination rules and any instructions announced to students.
• Your grievance, proof of its filing date, and any response.
• Names and contact details of witnesses.
• Documents proving harm: scholarship contract, correspondence from an employer or sponsoring body, fee receipts.
• For private universities: the enrolment agreement, the terms and conditions accepted online, and the academic integrity policy.

Common evidence and how it is challenged

Classroom cameras. Video footage is strong evidence if it is clear and reliably preserved. The student may ask to view it and may question its clarity, the camera angle, and whether it actually shows the alleged act or only a movement open to more than one interpretation. If the university claims footage exists but does not produce it, its position is weakened, and failure to preserve footage after a dispute arises raises legitimate questions.

Invigilation reports. These are the most common evidence. They can be tested on when they were written, immediately or hours after the exam, on their signatures, on the precision of their description, on consistency with other invigilators' accounts, and on whether any physical item such as notes or a device was seized with them.

Phones, smartwatches and earpieces. Having a device does not necessarily mean using it. The questions are whether it was switched on, whether it contained material related to the course, and whether its content was examined with the student's consent. Searching the content of a personal phone raises privacy issues, and opinions differ on the effect of examining content without express consent on whether the results can be relied on in discipline. That is a matter for the competent body and ultimately the court to weigh in the circumstances. See also our article on digital and electronic evidence under Kuwaiti law.

Similarity reports and online proctoring. For assignments and remote exams, universities rely on software that detects textual similarity or flags eye movement and sound. These reports are technical indications, not conclusive proof in themselves. A similarity score may reflect properly cited quotations or common terminology, and an automated flag of "suspicious behaviour" may reflect a poor connection or natural movement. The student is entitled to request the full report and a human review. Allegations of using artificial intelligence tools to write assignments are a recent area where regulations vary and where delicate questions arise about the reliability of detection tools; the matter remains for the competent body and then the courts to assess.

Similar answers between two students. This can be an indication, but it needs analysis: is the same unusual mistake repeated, were the students seated next to each other, did they study together? Holding one or both responsible usually requires more than similarity alone.

Witnesses. Other invigilators and nearby students may confirm or contradict the student's account, and the student may ask for defence witnesses to be heard during the investigation.

Hypothetical Cases

Case one: a switched-off phone in a pocket

A student at a public university is found halfway through an exam with a phone in his pocket. The phone is switched off and he was not seen using it. The invigilator records that he was "found in possession of a phone". After referral to investigation, he is suspended for a term and the course is cancelled. He has no prior record and a high GPA.

Analysis: the starting point is the regulation. Does it penalise bare possession of a phone in the hall, and with what penalty? If bare possession is an offence, the facts are established in principle, but proportionality remains a strong argument: the phone was off, there is no evidence of use, and there is no prior record. The student may argue manifest excess and seek a lighter penalty. If the regulation requires use or attempted use, the grounds of the decision are open to question because use was not proven. The student should file a grievance immediately and, if it fails, bring an annulment action with a request for suspension so that the term is not lost.

Case two: similar answers at an applied college

A student at a college of the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training is accused of cheating because her answer to an essay question resembled that of a classmate seated far away. She was never called for investigation; she was told by text message that her grade had been cancelled and that she had received a warning.

Analysis: the main problem is procedural. Imposing a penalty without notice of the charge and without a hearing affects a fundamental disciplinary safeguard and may on its own justify annulment. The distance between the seats also undermines the theory of direct copying, and the similarity may simply reflect studying from the same notes. She should request a copy of the decision and its reasons, file a grievance highlighting the procedural defect, and ask to be investigated in accordance with the regulations. If the institution maintains its position, the route to the Administrative Circuit is open.

Case three: an online exam at a private university

A student at a private university sits an online exam from home. The proctoring software flags "suspicious movements" and two exits from the exam window. The academic integrity committee expels him permanently without showing him the recording. He says his connection dropped and he logged back in immediately.

Analysis: the relationship here is contractual in principle. The lawyer reviews the enrolment agreement and the integrity policy: is an automated flag alone sufficient evidence, does the policy guarantee access to the evidence, and is permanent expulsion the prescribed penalty for a first offence of this kind? If the university departed from its published procedures or abused its right, the student may seek reinstatement or compensation before the civil courts. A complaint may also be lodged with the body supervising private universities, though that does not replace the judicial route. Whether a private university decision might, in particular circumstances, be subject to administrative review is a debated question for the competent court.

Quick Comparison: Public and Private Universities

• Nature of the decision: public university, an administrative decision in principle; private university, an act within a contractual relationship and internal regulations in principle.
• Competent court: public, the Administrative Circuit under Law No. 20 of 1981; private, generally the civil courts, with debate in some situations.
• Grounds of challenge: public, the five classic defects of an administrative decision; private, breach of contract or regulations, or abuse of right.
• Grievance: public, an administrative grievance with legal effects on litigation time limits; private, an internal grievance under the university's rules, sometimes including an academic appeals committee.
• Suspension: public, a request to suspend enforcement joined to the annulment action; private, interim measures before the urgent matters judge where the conditions are met.
• Compensation: available in both cases where fault, harm and causation are proven.
• Additional complaint route: public, the university's internal oversight bodies; private, the supervising authority for private universities, which is not a substitute for the courts.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I be expelled without an investigation?

The basic rule of discipline is no penalty without an investigation in which the student is confronted with the allegations and allowed to respond. Some regulations allow simplified procedures for minor penalties, but serious penalties such as expulsion generally require a full investigation. Absence of an investigation is one of the strongest grounds of challenge.

Should I file a grievance first or go straight to court?

For public universities, Law No. 20 of 1981 governs the relationship between the grievance, the annulment action and its time limits, and in many cases the grievance is a necessary or useful step before suing. The safest course is to file a grievance immediately and consult a lawyer at the same time to determine the exact route and deadlines.

What are the deadlines for a grievance and a lawsuit?

They are the deadlines set by law and by the regulations, and they usually run from the date you learned of the decision. Because missing a deadline can extinguish the right, the practical advice is to act immediately after being notified and not to rely on verbal assurances.

Does a grievance suspend the expulsion?

A grievance does not, as a rule, suspend enforcement unless the institution decides otherwise. That is why a request to suspend enforcement before the competent court is the judicial tool for protecting the student's studies while the dispute is pending.

What are the conditions for suspending an expulsion?

Courts usually require two conditions: seriousness, meaning the grounds of challenge appear on their face likely to lead to annulment, and urgency, meaning enforcement would cause consequences that are hard to reverse, such as lost terms or a lost scholarship. The court assesses both.

I signed a report saying I was cheating. Is it over?

Not necessarily. The student may explain the circumstances of signing, such as pressure in the moment or signing without reading, and may present evidence contradicting the report. Signing does weaken the position, which is why we advise against signing an admission that is not true.

Can the university search my phone?

Seizing a device found in the exam hall is one thing; examining its personal content is another, and it touches on privacy. Regulations differ on this, and opinions vary on whether content examined without consent can be relied on in discipline. It is assessed on the circumstances by the competent body and ultimately by the court.

Does an acquittal in a criminal case cancel the disciplinary penalty?

The two forms of liability are independent in principle. If an acquittal rests on a finding that the facts did not occur at all, it may affect the disciplinary track. The effect of a criminal judgment depends on its reasoning.

Can I claim compensation if the expulsion is annulled?

Yes, if the student proves fault in the form of an unlawful decision, harm, and a causal link. Harm may be material, such as delayed graduation and fees, or moral, such as damage to reputation. The court assesses the compensation.

What if I am a scholarship student and the expulsion ended my scholarship?

The expulsion may be followed by a separate decision of the sponsoring body terminating the scholarship and seeking repayment of expenses. That decision may itself be open to challenge, and annulment of the expulsion strengthens the student's position against it. See our article on study scholarship contracts in Kuwait.

Can my parent pursue the case on my behalf?

An adult student is the person entitled to file the grievance and sue, and may appoint a lawyer. Some regulations allow a parent to attend the investigation. A minor student is represented by his or her guardian under the general rules.

Will the cheating finding appear on my transcript?

That depends on the university's regulations. Some penalties are recorded in the academic file or on the transcript. Judicial annulment of the decision in principle entails removing its effects, including any entry in the record.

My instructor gave me zero in the exam hall without any referral. Is that lawful?

It depends on the regulations. Some allow cancellation of the exam paper in which cheating was detected, together with referral for investigation; others confine any consequence to the disciplinary body. If the instructor exceeded his powers, there may be a defect of competence.

Can I transfer to another university after expulsion?

That depends on the admission policies of the other university and whether it requires a conduct certificate or the reason for leaving the previous institution. Seeking annulment or reduction of the penalty therefore also protects the possibility of transfer.

Conclusion

An expulsion for cheating is not a routine administrative step. It touches a fundamental right to education, and its effects extend into a student's professional and social future. Universities are entitled, and indeed obliged, to protect the integrity of their examinations, but in return they must exercise that power in accordance with their regulations, after a fair investigation, with a proportionate penalty, and through a reasoned decision issued by the competent body.

The difference between a student who manages to protect his or her future and one who loses it usually comes down to two things: speed and documentation. Speed in filing the grievance and the challenge within the time limits set by law, and in seeking suspension before the term is lost; and documentation from the moment of the accusation: who was present, what was said, what was signed, and what evidence actually exists.

Whether you study at a public university whose decisions are reviewed by the Administrative Circuit, or at a private university governed by a contract and internal regulations, reading the regulations carefully and building the defence on sound legal ground are the keys to a successful review. For more on discipline in the administrative context generally, see our article on unlawful disciplinary penalties and how to challenge them.

Legal Notice

This article is general legal information and does not replace an assessment of your particular case. University regulations differ and change, and grievance and litigation deadlines are sensitive statutory limits that can extinguish rights if missed. If a disciplinary decision has been issued against you for alleged cheating, or you have been summoned to an investigation, do not wait.

The team at Yumnaak Law Firm will be glad to review your file and assess the prospects of a grievance, a challenge and a suspension request. You can contact us or book an appointment at our office.