LAWYERS’ ETHICS
Not a few male lawyers have been disbarred for committing
The struggle to become a lawyer is real. Yet, not a few lawyers
squander the privilege of being a lawyer by committing acts
that cost them their license to practice law. Consider what one
has to go through to become a lawyer. First, after hurdling a
four-year course, the journey to finish a law degree in at least
four years begins. Some take it for as long as seven to eight
years; others, even longer. Then a six-month review ensues.
Finally comes the most grueling licensure exam in the country,
the bar exams. Thousands have to take the bar exam several
times before they finally take their oath as lawyers.
It is therefore unsettling, to say the least, how some
lawyers brazenly commit acts that merit their suspension or
even disbarment. In one recently decided case for example, a
notary public notarized a deed of absolute sale fully knowing
that his notarial commission had expired. He was permanently
barred from becoming a notary public again and suspended
from law practice for two years. In another recent case, a
lawyer desiring ardently to help her male client obtain a
declaration of nullity of marriage advised him that it would be
best if the wife were the one to file the petition to ensure that
she would not oppose it. What made the situation utterly
wrong was that, upon payment by the husband of her fees,
she made the petition as lawyer for the wife; forged the
signature of her supposed client; and then filed it. She even
obtained a residence certificate for the wife from a place she
never lived at. The wife filed a disbarment case against her.
The Supreme Court reminded her as well as all other lawyers
that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead or allow the Court
to be misled by any means. She was disbarred.
Generally, the three most common grounds why
lawyers get either suspended or disbarred are: women (with
respect to male lawyers); greed for money; and gross
negligence and incompetence. There are other grounds, of
course, for which lawyers are sanctioned such as the use of
foul and gutter language in pleadings submitted to the courts
and disrespect for the courts as shown by a refusal or failure
to comply with orders.
bigamy, concubinage or adultery—committed with a married
woman. In these cases the Supreme Court said that “A lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, immoral or deceitful conduct and
shall at all times uphold the integrity of the bar.” The Supreme
Court added that the commission of such offenses by lawyers
exhibit a deplorable lack of degree of morality because they
make a mockery of the institution of marriage.
In another case, this time involving money, a lawyer
who was entrusted by his client with the sale of his real estate
property did not remit to his client the proceeds of the sale.
When sued by his client and ordered by the court to return to
his client the proceeds of the sale, he ignored the court’s
order, resulting in his disbarment. The Supreme Court said
that the highly fiduciary nature of a lawyer-client relationship
imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the money
or property collected or received for or from his client.
In several cases, lawyers failed in their duty to their
clients, that is, they failed to do what was incumbent upon
them. Some missed numerous deadlines for the filing of
required pleadings; others filed wrong pleadings; still another
kept filing motions for extension of time to file the needed
submission only to fail in filing any. The Supreme Court
stressed that, as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer shall serve his client with competence
and diligence. He shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him and his negligence in connection with it shall render him
liable.
The practice of law commands such a high degree of
responsibility, integrity and morality that it is considered as
one of the most challenging and noble professions of all time.
Yet, because many lawyers do not take their oath as lawyers
seriously, there has been a proliferation of jokes that insult
and denigrate lawyers and their profession. There has also
been a spate of scandals and wrongdoings involving lawyers
not only in recent events but in the past many years.
This should make law schools rethink the way they
teach law students. What should the thrust of their curriculum
be? Is emphasis given more to producing lawyers that will
succeed in prominence and financial standing? Do law schools
make students understand that the profession they have
chosen to pursue demands of them uprightness, fairness, a
sense of justice and utmost sense of responsibility to society,
the courts and their clients? As for those who have been
disbarred or suspended from the practice of law, should not
their mentors and their parents ask themselves where they
went wrong?
A Lawyer’s Letter to His Son (written in detention by Sen.
Jose W. Diokno to his eldest son, Jose Ramon, on 23 October
1972)
Dear Popoy,
When you asked me about a month ago, for a list of books
that you could read to start studying law, I was loathe to
prepare the list because I felt that you would be wasting your
time studying law in this “new society.”
I am still not sure that it would be worth your while to do so. A
few days ago, while chatting with a soldier, he asked, in all
seriousness and sincerity, “Pero sir, kailangan pa ba ang mga
abogado ngayon?” And in a way that perhaps he did not
intend, he raised a perfectly valid question.
A lawyer lives in and by the law; and there is no law when
society is ruled, not by reason, but by will–worse, by the will
of one man.
A lawyer strives for justice; and there is no justice when men
and women are imprisoned not only without guilt, but without
trial.
A lawyer must work in freedom; and there is no freedom when
conformity is extracted by fear and criticism silenced by force.
A lawyer builds on facts. He must seek truth; and there is no
truth when facts are suppressed, news is manipulated and
charges are fabricated.
Worse, when the Constitution is invoked to justify outrages
against freedom, truth and justice, when democracy is
destroyed under the pretext of saving it, law is not only
denied–it is perverted.
And what need do our people have for men and women who
would practice perversion?
Yet the truth remains true that never have our people had
greater need than today for great lawyers, and for young men
and women determined to be great lawyers.
Great lawyers–not brilliant lawyers. A scoundrel may be, and
often is, brilliant; and the greater the scoundrel, the more
brilliant the lawyer. But only a good man can become a great
lawyer: for only a man who understands the weaknesses of
men because he has conquered them in himself; who has the
courage to pursue his ideals though he knows them to be
unattainable; who tempers his conviction with respect for
those of others because he realizes he may be mistaken; who
deals honorably and fairly with all, because to do otherwise
would diminish him as well as them–only such a man would
so command respect that he could persuade and need never
resort to force. Only such a man could become a great lawyer.
Otherwise, “what you are speaks so loudly, cannot hear what
you say.”
For men and women of this kind, our country will always have
need–and now more than ever. True, there is little that men
of goodwill can do now to end the madness that holds our
nation in its grip. But we can, even now, scrutinize our past;
try to pinpoint where we went wrong; determine what led to
this madness and what nurtured it; and how, when it ends, we
can make sure that it need never happen again.
For this madness must end–if not in my lifetime, at least in
yours.
We Filipinos are proverbially patient, but we are also infinitely
tough and ingeniously resourceful. Our entire history as a
people has been a quest for freedom and dignity; and we will
not be denied our dreams.
So this madness will end; the rule of force will yield to the rule
of law. Then the country will need its great lawyers, its great
engineers,its great economists and managers, the best of its
men and women to clear the shambles and restore the
foundations of that noble and truly Filipino society for which
our forefathers fought, bled and died.
So, there are two sides to the question of whether it is worth
your while to study law; and, in the end, it is a question that
only you can answer.
Just be sure, that, whatever be your decision, it is truly yours,
that it is truly what you want, not a choice dictated by a sense
of duty to follow in my footsteps.
To help you decide, I suggest that you read:
(a) The Attorney’s Oath, Form No, 28 appended to our Rules
of Court; and the duties of an attorney, Rule 138, sec. 20 of
the Rules of Court, which you can ask from my office;
(b) “The Five Functions of a Lawyer” in Arthur T. Vandervilt’s
“Cases and Materials on Modern Procedure.”
(c) “The Chicago Lawyer’s Pledge” on p. 395, and “The Crafts
of Law Re-valued” on pp. 316-322 of Karl Llewellyn’s
“Jurisprudence.”
(d) “The Lawyer from Antiquity to Modern Times” by Roscoe
Pound.
(e) “Men of Law” by William Seagle.
These should give you an idea of what a lawyer should be and
what he has been in the past. What he is in our country, you
have an idea;
(f) Martin Mayer’s “The Lawyers”, tells you what he is in the
United
States; and
(g) Brian Abel-Smith’s “Lawyers and Courts”, what he is in
England.
Read either and compare with our practice. And for a critique
of lawyers, of courts, and even of law, read,
(h) “Law against the People,” by Robert Lefcourt.
As you read, cultivate the habit I have never been able to
school myself to do of taking notes of your reading–not only
of the gist of what the author says, or quotations of thoughts
he felicitously expresses, but also of your reactions to his work
(where you agree or disagree or suspend judgment, and why)
and of the thoughts he arouses in you. File your notes in
orderly fashion. They will become invaluable to you as you
mature.
After you have read enough to give you an idea of what a
lawyer is and does, but before you firmly commit yourself, one
way or the other, discuss the matter with your wife and your
friends, always bearing these things in mind:
– That the law is a demanding profession, exacting a constant
and unswerving devotion that is always a thinking obedience
to its ideals, and that is much harder to give than blind
obedience;
– That the rewards of the law as a profession are not in wealth
or even in fame, but in the respect of your peers, in the
excitement of the chase after justice, and in the satisfaction
not only of service to your clients but of having somehow
shaped the future by molding the law of today.
This has been a long letter on a short question–whether to
study law–and is not an example to be emulated should you
decide in favor of law. My excuse is that time lies heavy on my
hands in these days of detention, and since we can talk only
in snatches when you visit, I have written at length in the hope
of anticipating some of your questions.
You may suspect that, by stressing the difficulties of the law
profession and by suggesting that you read some eight books
before making up your mind, I am trying to discourage you
from studying law. I am not. In a rather heavy-handed way, I
am trying to paint the lawyer’s role as accurately as I can and
show you that, if you do decide to become a lawyer, you must
prepare yourself for a lifetime of study,reading, weighing and
deciding, while at the same time acting and doing. It sounds
impossible–but every day it has been and is being done.
I have loved the law; and I have always been proud of being
a lawyer. But I have never been prouder than the day, five
Sundays ago, that you told me that you wanted to study law.
Regardless of what you may finally decide, the fact that you
even thought of becoming a lawyer, despite my arrest and
detention, allows me to hope that I have not failed as a lawyer
and as a father.
For that, son, thanks.
Your father, PEPE