In the Matter of JAMES JOSEPH HAMM

Arizona Supreme Court No. SB-04-0079-M211 Ariz 458, 123 p.3d 652, 2005
Petitioners: James Hamm
Petition:
To review the recommendation provided by Committee on Character and Fitness (the
Committee) denying the Petitioners application for admission to the State Bar of Arizona (the
Bar).
FACTS:
- Hamm, the Petitioner, was sentenced to life in prison for one-count of first degree
murder to which he pled guilty. Prior to serving his sentence, Hamm had been separated from
his wife with whom he had as on and had supported himself by selling and using marijuana,
other drugs and drinking alcohol.
- The crime for which Hamm was sentenced to life imprisonment is for the murder of
Morley and Well, who were killed by Hamm along with two accomplices, Garland Wells and Bill
Reeser. The three robbed and killed Morley and Well by shooting them with a gun and leaving
their bodies lying in the dessert.
- While in prison, Hamm exhibited good conduct and became a model prisoner which
earned him a conditioned parole. Hamm was released after serving nearly seventeen years in
prison. From conditioned parole, Hamm absolutely discharged on December 2001.
- While on parole, Hamm graduated from the Arizona State University College of Law.
In July 1999, Hamm passed the Arizona bar examination and, in 2004, filed his Character and
Fitness Report with the Committee.
- In its report, the Committee stated that, in reaching its conclusions, it considered the
following:
Hamms unlawful conduct, which included the commission of two violent execution
style
murders and his testimony as to the facts surrounding the murders

Hamms omissions on his Application and his testimony in explaining his failure to
disclose all
required information.

Hamms neglect of his financial responsibilities and/or violation of a longstanding child

support
court order and his testimony as to his failure to comply with the court order.

 Hamms mental or emotional instability impairing his ability to perform the functions of an
attorney including his testimony as to any diagnosis and treatment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Hamm can be admitted to the Bar.
HELD:
No, the Supreme Court decided that Hamm failed to prove his burden that he is of good moral
character on the following grounds:
- Hamm failed to show rehabilitation from past criminal conduct by not accepting full
responsibility for serious criminal misconduct - Staples murder although he accepted
responsibility for the death of Morley.
- Hamm was not completely up-front in his testimony to the murder of which he claims that he
only intended to rob and not to kill. This is contrary to the facts he accepted the gun and
brings it with him in the car, shot Morley without attempting robbery and shot hit again to
ensure he is dead and shot Staples when he attempted to escape.
-Hamms failure to fulfill his long overdue obligation to support his child who he was aware
existed.
-Hamms failure to disclose the incident involving him and his wife, Donna, when he submitted
his application to the Committee. This incident gave rise to Hamm being questioned by the law
enforcers which should have been reflected by Hamm in the application
Question 25.
-Hamms act of quoting lines from Supreme Courts decision and use the same in the
introduction for his petition

SORIANO V. DIZON
Facts:
A taxi driver (Soriano) filed an action for the disbarment of Atty. Dizon, on the grounds
that Dizon was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, and violated Canon 1 of Rule 1.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Soriano allegedly fell victim to Dizon, who was found to have:
a. Driven his car under the influence of liquor;
b. Reacted violently and attempted assault for over a simple traffic incident;
c. Shot at Soriano, who was unarmed and not in the position to defend himself (treachery);
d. Denied his acts despite positive evidence against him (dishonesty);

e. Guilty of dishonesty, claiming to be mauled by the victim (Kawawang driver, binaril na

nga, may lakas pa daw mag maul ng attorney na may baril. Hindi din tanga mag rason si
Dizon diba?);
f. Despite neing granted probation, he did not satisfy his civil liabilities to the victim (Ano ba
problema nito?!)
Issues:
(1) Is Dizons crime of Frustrated Homicide considered a crime involving moral turpitude
(2) Does his guilt to such crime warrant disbarment?
Held:
(1) Yes.
Moral Turpitude is everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good
morals
Dizon was obviously the aggressor for having pursued and shot Soriano, not only
because of his treachery, but also his intent to escape, betrayed by his attempt to wipe off his
prints from the gun. His inordinate reaction to a simple traffic incident clearly indicates his nonfitness to be a lawyer.
(2) Yes.
His illegal possession of fire-arms, and his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities all
justify disbarment. The court reminds him that in oath and in the CPR, he is bound to obey the
laws of the land. The liabilities in question have been sitting for 4 years, unsatisfied, despite it
being the condition for his probation (you ungrateful person!)
Dizon displayed an utter lack of good moral character, which is an essential qualification
for the privilege to enter into the practice of law. Good moral character includes at least common
honesty.
Manuel Dizon, hereby disbarred.

AGUIRRE V. RAMA
FACTS
Respondent Edwin L. Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations.
On 21 May 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar examinees
as members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre filed against respondent
a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar, charging respondent with unauthorized practice of
law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation.
The Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member of the Bar during the
scheduled oath-taking on 22 May 2001 but ruled that he cannot sign the Roll of Attorneys
pending the resolution of the charge against him.
Complainant charged respondent for unauthorized practice of law and grave
misconduct, alleging that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for Vice
Mayoralty candidate George Bunan in the May 2001 elections before the Municipal Board of
Election Canvassers (MBEC) of Mandaon, Masbate, and filed with the MBEC a pleading as
counsel entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts
for the Office of Vice-Mayor. Respondent also signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in her petition
to be declared the winning mayoralty candidate.

On the charge of violation of law, respondent is not allowed by law to act as counsel for
a client in any court or administrative body, respondent being a municipal government employee
(Secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate).
The Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation,
report and recommendation.
OBCs Report and Recommendation
The OBC found that respondent indeed appeared before the MBEC as counsel for Bunan in the
May 2001 elections. The minutes of the MBEC proceedings show that respondent actively
participated in the proceedings. The OBC likewise found that respondent appeared in the
MBEC proceedings even before he took the lawyers oath on 22 May 2001. Respondents
misconduct casts a serious doubt on his moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. Such
unauthorized practice of law is a ground to deny his admission to the practice of law.
HELD
Respondent is guilty of unauthorized practice of law and was thus denied admission to
the Philippine bar.
1. SC agreed with the finding of the OBC that respondent engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law and thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar.
- Respondent appeared as counsel for Bunan and signed as counsel in the pleadings
- was also retained as counsel of mayoralty candidate Emily Estipona-Hao and of party
REFORMA LM-PPC
*all these took place before Respondent took his oath and signed the Roll of Attorneys
2. What constitutes the practice of law
- The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it
embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special
proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients
before judges and courts
- all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the
law, incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services contemplating an
appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a
creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings
in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute
law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work
done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and
conditions.
- any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience.
- perform acts which are usually performed by members of the legal profession.
- render any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill.
* respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the proceedings
before the MBEC and filed various pleadings, without license to do so.
3. The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege.
- limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained
and certified.
- A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar
examinations.
- although respondent passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyers oath, it
is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer.
CAYETANO V. MONSOD

FACTS
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by then President Aquino for the position of COMELEC
Chairman in 1991. This nomination was opposed by petitioner Cayetano on the ground that Monsod does not
possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years. Apparently, the
Constitution requires that the COMELEC Chairperson be a member of the Philippine Bar who has been engaged in
the practice of law for at least 10 years. Despite Cayetanos opposition, the Commission on Appointments confirmed
the nomination. Thus, Cayetano filed an instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, basically challenging the
confirmation by the CA of Monsods nomination.
ISSUE
Is Monsod qualified to be COMELEC Chairperson?
HELD
YES.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. Practice of law under modem conditions
consists in no small part of work performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in
court. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of subjects, and the preparation and
execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs. Although
these transactions may have no direct connection with court proceedings, they are always subject to become
involved in litigation. They require in many aspects a high degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men and
affairs, and great capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These customary functions of an attorney
or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration of justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far
as concerns the question set forth in the order, can be drawn between that part of the work of the lawyer which
involves appearance in court and that part which involves advice and drafting of instruments in his office. It is of
importance to the welfare of the public that these manifold customary functions be performed by persons possessed
of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all times under the heavy trust obligations to
clients which rests upon all attorneys.
The SC, in order to arrive at its decision, presented a brief history of Monsods employment. After
passing the bar exam, Atty. Monsod worked in the law office of his father. From 1963 to 1970, he worked for the
World Bank Group, where he was assigned as operations officer in Costa Rica. His job involved getting acquainted
with the laws of member-countries negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic and project work of the bank.
In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and worked with the Meralco Group, served as chief executive of an
investment bank and a business conglomerate. By 1986, he rendered his services to various companies as a legal
and economic consultant and he also worked as a Chief Executive Officer. He was also the Secretary-General and
National Chairman of NAMFREL in 1986-1987. His position in NAMFREL required his knowledge in election law.
Also, he sat as a member of the Davide Commission in 1990.
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term Practice of law". particularly the modern concept
of law practice, and taking into consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the Constitution, Atty.
Monsod's past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
PADILLA, J., dissenting:
There are several factors determinative of whether a particular activity constitutes "practice of law."
1. Habituality
2. Compensation
3. Application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure which calls or legal knowledge, training and
experience is within the term "practice of law.
4. Attorney-client relationship.