1.a.

Given the fact that the only licensed member of the Bar is representing Kulasa who is the private complainant, Judge Canuto, in the pursuit of justice and fair trial, should see to it that Tansho be given the right to defend himself. Judge Canuto should appoint Atty. Kulafu as the counsel of Tansho since he is the only available member of the Bar in the vicinity.

1.b. Atty. Kulafu cannot refuse the appointment as counsel de officio because as part of his duty as being a member of the Bar, he must be at all times ready to extend help and act as counsel to the needy people, most especially if Tansho is an indigent. The foremost duty of a lawyer is to administer justice such that nobody will be denied of a fair trial in all circumstances.

1.c. Tansho is not correct. Tansho should have insisted on the appointment of Atty. Vino Veritas instead of Atty. Kulafu right from the commencement and not after the case is promulgated. The loss of the case ultimately redounds to the detriment of Tansho and not Atty. Kulafu so if he is not satisfied to the services of Atty Kulafu, he should have fired him right there and then. He cannot claim now that he was denied constitutional right to counsel because he has in fact a counsel and he did not change his counsel during the time that the case was still heard. 2.a. 2.b. If I am Atty. Camat, I will not accept the case because it will be unethical since I am a witness to the vehicular accident and Moymoy is my brother or ward 3.a. Atty. Tulava should refuse to accept the case and just refer the case to other lawyers or to talk to the two parties, since he acts as counsel to both, to iron out their differences, that if they have misunderstandings, they should settle it once and for all at their level and not to bring an action to court anymore. 3.b. If I am Atty. Tulava, I should refuse to handle the case and would just refer it to other lawyers because it is equivalent to conflicts of interests if I should accept it since I act as counsel for the two banks. 4.a. The act of Atty. Resbak is unethical and improper because eventhough Mando has in fact a lot of money, it was part of the loot in the crime for which he was acquitted. Therefore, Mando is really guilty of the crime of theft. Thus the knowledge that the money was part of the loot makes the services charged upon tantamount to consenting to the crime he committed. 4.b. If Mando voluntarily offered to pay Atty. Resbak for his services, it would appear that it is proper and ethical because the offer is out of the benevolent and generous heart of Mando. Atty. Resbak is not prohibited to accept a gift or a generous offer from a person whom he helped. 4.c. If Atty. Resbak is a counsel de parte of Mando