Rule 13

1. Question:

Atty. Elaine requested Judge Kevin to be a principal sponsor at the wedding of her
son. Atty. Elaine met Judge Kevin a month ago before. During an IBP- sponsored
reception to the welcome of Judge Kevin into the Community, and having learned
the Judge Kevin takes his breakfast at the coffee shop near his (Judge Kevin’s)
boarding house, Atty. Elaine made it to a point to be at the coffee shop at about the
time that Judge kevin takes his breakfast. Comment on Atty. Elaine’s acts. Do they
violate the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Suggested Answer:

Yes, Her actions violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 13.01 of
the same Code provides that a lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or
hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for, cultivating familiarity with judges. Atty.
Elaine obviously sought opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judge Kevin
by being at the coffee shop where the latter takes his breakfast, and is extending
extraordinary attention to the judge by inviting him to be a principal sponsor at the
wedding of her son.

2. Question:

Maye, a noted professor of commercial law, wrote an article on the subject of letter
of credit which was published in the IBP Journal.

Assume she devoted a significant portion of the article to a commentary on how

the Supreme Court should decide a pending case involving the application of the
law on letters of credit. May she be sanctioned by the Supreme Court? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

Yes, she may be sanctioned by the Court. Canon 13, Rule 13.02 provides that “a
lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.” As a lawyer, Maye should
not have made such statements regarding a pending case so as not to influence the
Court in deciding the case or giving the public the impression that the Court wa
influenced by his commentaries, should the Court arrive at a decision similar to
that of Maye’s comments.

3.Question:

Atty. A is offered professional engagement to appear before Judge B who is A’s

relative,
Compadre and former office colleague. Is A ethically compelled to refuse the
engagement? Why?

Suggested Answer:

A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of the cause and refrain from any impropriety
which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of the influencing the court (
Canon 13, Code of Professional Conduct ). There is no ethical constraint against a
lawyer appearing before a judge who is a relative, compadre or former office
colleague as long as the lawyer avoids giving the impression that he can influence
the judge. On the other hand, the judge is required by the Code of Judicial Conduct
not to take part in any proceeding where his impartiality may be reasonably
questioned ( Rule 3.12 Code of Judicial Conduct ). Among the grounds for
mandatory disqualification of the judge is if any of the lawyers is a relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree.