Lawyers’ disbarment

Lawyers’ disbarment | Daily Tribune

This week, a lawyer filed a disbarment case against a fellow lawyer. Now, rather than discuss the merits or demerits of the case, the parties involved, and the possible reasons for the filing of the case, let us instead discuss disbarment in general. In addition, the disbarment case has been filed and I give due respect to the Supreme Court before which the matter is now pending.

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, there are specific grounds to warrant the removal or suspension of a lawyer from the practice of law. There are seven enumerated, namely: (a) deceit; (b) malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office; (c) grossly immoral conduct; (d) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (e) any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice; (f) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (g) corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do.

The first three may be discussed today due to their depth and breadth, and the next four may be discussed at some other time.

Deceit is indeed a broad concept but there have been some notable Supreme Court decisions on what constitutes deceit and its nature. In one case, the Court found respondent therein to have committed dishonesty and abused the confidence of his client for failing to file the ejectment suit he was supposed to file, despite asking for and receiving from the complainant the money intended for filing fees. The respondent attempted to mislead the Court by claiming that he had not yet received the registry return card of the notice to vacate he had sent out, hence, his failure to file the ejectment suit. However, the records showed that he had already received the same.

In another case, a lawyer was subjected to disciplinary action for selling a piece of non-disposable land in the public domain. He was adjudged to have violated his oath not to commit falsehood and misrepresentation to the buyer-complainant.

Malpractice covers a different set of questionable acts but here are the two most common: The Court pronounced that it is professionally irresponsible for a lawyer to file frivolous lawsuits against others. Lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice. But they do not discharge this duty by filing frivolous petitions or baseless suits that only add to the workload of the judiciary.

The violation of the trust and confidence of the client by representing conflicting interests is another example of behavior which constitutes malpractice. The lawyer in this case represented the creditors when his accounting firm prepared and computed their claims against the estate, while his law firm also represented the estate itself as counsel.

The High Court also has had occasion to deal with grossly immoral conduct which it described as a serious charge. The Court stated that it is an act that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.

It may not come as a surprise that the one disciplinary ground with the highest likelihood of being committed at least by male lawyers is having illicit relationships with two women. A lawyer, the Supreme Court has pronounced, must always demonstrate that he or she has good moral character and should behave in accordance with accepted standards.

The High Court has also had the occasion to rule that the possession of good moral character by lawyers is so important that it constitutes a continuing condition for membership in the bar.

In another case, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to clarify the ground of immorality to include not only sexual matters but also conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or one indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.

I wish to conclude by stating that in deciding cases against lawyers, it is still on a case by case basis, where all relevant facts and surrounding circumstances are taken into account. For fairness’ sake and for considerations of justice itself, any tendency or temptation to pre-judge the case should at all times be avoided.