Paras, Cayetano v.

Monsod

We must interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by the spirit that giveth life.

Take this hypothetical case of Samson and Delilah. Once, the procurator of Judea
asked Delilah (who was Samson's beloved) for help in capturing Samson. Delilah
agreed on condition that

No blade shall touch his skin;

No blood shall flow from his veins.

When Samson (his long hair cut by Delilah) was captured, the procurator placed an
iron rod burning white-hot two or three inches away from in front of Samson's eyes.
This blinded the man. Upon hearing of what had happened to her beloved, Delilah
was beside herself with anger, and fuming with righteous fury, accused the
procurator of reneging on his word. The procurator calmly replied: "Did any blade
touch his skin? Did any blood flow from his veins?" The procurator was clearly
relying on the letter, not the spirit of the agreement.

LAWYERS MORALLY, LEGALLY BOUND TO INSURE PROFESSION'S INTEGRITY

Considering the thousands of lawyers in Arizona and the tens of thousands around
the country, the incidents of attorney misconduct involving questions of honesty
and integrity are relatively low. However, the public's perception of lawyers as
dishonest professionals preying on the publics misfortune seems to be widespread.

Like many states, Arizona has an extensive network of procedures for handling
complaints against lawyers through the office of the State Bar of Arizona.
Complaints range from failure to communicate promptly with a client to a serious
breach of trust involving the client's money or property. Our State Bar does a
thorough job of policing complaints, but, obviously, it cannot take action unless a
complaint is brought to its attention. Historically, complaints were generated by
current clients, potential clients or former clients.

In recent years, attention has been directed toward attorneys policing themselves;
that is, lawyers blowing the whistle on other lawyers. The public might find this
notion inconceivable, but it is happening with increasing frequency. This self-policing
is not only encouraged, it is required.

The rules of professional conduct governing lawyers include a requirement that any
lawyer having knowledge "that another lawyer has committed a violation of the
rules of professional conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's
honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer must bring that knowledge to the
attention of the State Bar."
Subject to a compelling requirement to protect the confidential information of a
client, attorneys not only are expected but compelled to report serious misconduct
to the State Bar. The real irony of the situation is that a lawyer who fails to blow the
whistle on a fellow lawyer also is guilty of misconduct. The otherwise honest
attorney who cannot bring himself to turn in another to the State Bar has, by his
silence, violated the rules of professional conduct.

Lawyers and judges are often in a better position to recognize misconduct,

particularly misconduct involving a lawyer's honesty and integrity. If we are to
improve the public's perception of lawyers, we must exercise good professional and
moral judgment in the representation of our clients. We must adhere zealously to
the ethics of our profession, and that includes policing our own ranks. When the
public is protected, everyone benefits, including the legal profession.

Maintaining lawyers integrity: Message from the IBA President

David W Rivkin, IBA President

I have emphasised throughout my Presidency the important role that lawyers play
in civil society by creating a rule of law and that we as lawyers need to do a better
job explaining this role to the rest of society. No other profession devotes as much of
its time and resources to serving the public interest, through pro bono work and
otherwise. In that regard, it is important that lawyers be seen as pursuing their
clients interests but only in an appropriate manner that reflects the ethical
standards of our profession and our duties to the interests of justice. A recent highly
publicised investigation demonstrated the harm to the image of the profession that
can occur when lawyers are seen as not acting according to those standards.
A Global Witness report on lawyers behaviour received substantial press coverage,
including a long report by the widely watched 60 Minutes television show in the
United States. An investigator from that NGO posed as an advisor to a senior official
of a foreign government seeking to move anonymously into the US millions of
dollars of funds that appeared to have been
obtained through corrupt activity. The Presidents E-news messages
investigator put this proposal to lawyers from
13 New York City law firms and secretly filmed January 2015
the lawyers responses. Only one lawyer refused
March 2015
to discuss the matter, and the others provided
to varying degrees suggestions on how money May 2015
could be transferred into the US without
detection, largely by using shell companies or October 2015
cooperative or less strict banks; some even
November 2015
suggested the use of their own law firms bank
account. December 2015

The advisor never sought formally to retain Related

any of these lawyers, so one cannot know how
many of them would have agreed to be retained President's plans for 2015/2016
for these purposes. The NGO's methods are
Anti-Corruption Strategy for the
likely to be felt by some to be unpalatable.
Legal Profession
Nevertheless, many of the lawyers statements
can be seen as aiding and abetting money IBA guides, rules and other free
laundering. New Yorks ethical code prohibits materials
lawyers from counselling or assisting clients in
illegal or fraudulent transactions, and of course David W Rivkin takes up
the fact that the client relationship has not yet presidency (IBA news release)
been created does not excuse aiding and
abetting a crime. The expos certainly reflects poorly on the legal profession and
undermines public trust and confidence in us as lawyers. It also raises concerns
about the effectiveness of professional ethical rules and training to guard against
such behaviour.

While this report focused on New York lawyers, the problem of lawyers assisting
conduct that is corrupt or illegal is certainly more widespread. For example, Global
Witness has also exposed the use of inflated legal fees to move suspect funds from
Papua New Guinea to Australia. It is clear that wherever this behaviour occurs, it
compromises public perception of and trust in our profession.

The IBA takes such questionable conduct seriously and has standards in place and a
number of ongoing initiatives seeking to address corruption and strengthen the rule
of law. These include the Anti-Corruption Strategy for the Legal Profession, Business
and Human Rights Project, and Judicial Integrity Initiative.
The IBAs International Principles on Conduct for the Legal Profession, adopted by
the IBA Council in 2011, articulate common ethical and professional standards
across jurisdictions. These include the principles of independence, integrity,
honesty, and fairness. Importantly, the Principles provide that, while a lawyer shall
treat client interests as paramount, such interests are always subject to the lawyers
duties to the court and the interests of justice, to observe the law, and to maintain
ethical standards. Lawyers should also promote access to justice, so there must be
a nuanced balance between not restricting preliminary meetings with clients and a
strict adherence to these standards and professional, ethical and human rights
considerations. In order to ensure faith in the justice system, lawyers must maintain
a high degree of professionalism and ethical conduct while promoting justice and
rule of law.

Our Anti-corruption Strategy for the Legal Profession, conducted with the OECD and
the UNODC, trained more than 1,000 lawyers in more than 35 countries. It
culminated in a number of workshops and awareness-raising events, as well as two
major reports, Risks and threats of corruption and the legal profession and Anti-
corruption compliance and the legal profession. This strategy focuses on methods to
manage the risks of corruption in order to meet the demands and requirements of
clients; the role lawyers play in combatting international corruption; and how
international instruments and extraterritorial legislation apply to the legal practice.

Building on the success of the Anti-Corruption Strategy, in January 2015, I launched

our Judicial Integrity Initiative. An independent judiciary free from corruption is
fundamental to upholding the rule of law and guaranteeing basic human rights in
society. The project seeks, among others things, to make lawyers and judges more
aware of the various ways their interactions are vulnerable to corruption, and how
to prevent and combat such conduct. Responses to the global survey conducted by
the IBA suggest that lawyers may often be the intermediaries in corrupt conduct
within judicial systems. This indicates weaknesses in the rule of law in some
countries that some lawyers are all too willing to exploit. Following the publication of
the results of this global survey, expected in March, the Judicial Integrity Initiative
will turn to using that information to develop and improve practices designed to
eliminate judicial corruption.

In addition to the Anti-Corruption Strategy and Judicial Integrity Initiative, we

encourage members to engage with our Business and Human Rights for the Legal
Profession project, and associated reports, including the IBA Business and Human
Rights Guidance for Bar Associations. The IBA is also working on a practical guide
for business lawyers on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
(Guiding Principles), which is likely to be publicly available in June 2016. This
initiative is intended to improve lawyers capacity to consider effectively the
relevance of the Guiding Principles to the advice that they provide to clients in all
type of commercial and business transactions; to encourage the use of the Guiding
Principles by members of the legal profession and provide technical assistance to
practitioners and other interested stakeholders; and to represent positively the legal
profession and bar associations as champions of business and human rights in local
and international fora.

The Global Witness expos is a timely, though unfortunate, reminder of how

important it is for the legal profession to conduct itself in accordance with the
highest ethical and professional standards. To do otherwise can call into question
not just the reputation of individual lawyers and law firms but the legal profession
itself. And if the professions integrity is lost, so is our ability to remain an
independent force that protects individual liberties and the rule of law.

David W Rivkin
President
@dwrivkin

Building brand identity and integrity

19 September 2008

Lawyers Weekly

0
What's in a name? Potential to attract clients and employees, lower costs, higher
levels of competitiveness ... and more, writes Sue-Ella McDowall.

It is well known that a clear brand identity provides a distinct competitive

advantage for businesses across all sectors. Identity is also a prerequisite for your
legal business to be in a position to communicate its integrity.

The history of law firms and the system of partnerships has meant that legal firms
have taken a while to catch up with other professional services in the use of
branding to recruit and retain clients.

Naturally, the legal sector tends to be dominated by professionals who are absorbed
in the interpretation of law and, in most cases, are having their time clocked by the
all-powerful 6-minute billing unit.

Work on brand development is not only non-billable but is also creative, time
consuming and - as with all great marketing - somewhat risky. It is no wonder it has
taken the legal profession some time to be ready for modern branding.

There are now so many legal firms making basic branding mistakes that any firm
that sticks to the basics will stand out like a beacon in a sea of sameness, which is
exactly what you want when it comes to your branding.

McDowall has been building brands for more than 20 years and one of the biggest
mistakes we see in the legal sector is that many legal firms do not have a clear
brand identity. Some have not even attempted to brand their business.

It's very common for legal firms to begin branding with their partners' names. The
problem with this is that names almost never help clients connect to the values of a
firm, and don't communicate the clear benefit of one firm over the next.

Moreover, legal firms often brand using partner names by tradition - even though
the partner may no longer work at the firm. Although some firms are so old and
well-known that they have effectively established a "real" brand using partners'
names, most firms need to think twice about this identity strategy.

The most important perspective on any brand identity comes from clients, so it's
fascinating to note the number of existing firms (we estimate as many as 20 per
cent) that ignore the fact that their clients have already abbreviated their firm
(partners') names to effectively create their own, client-driven, brand name. This
habit needs to be considered when working on a new brand and - for existing
brands - embraced as part of healthy brand development.

A great brand identity, consistently applied, becomes a mark of integrity. It is an

essential core to any business, and, of course, this is even more important in the
field of legal practice.
Integrity in branding is all about standing for something important, and doing so
consistently. This consistency needs to be demonstrated over time, and
implemented across each division of the firm. Clients have always been experts at
spotting inconsistencies between what legal firms say and what they do - but in
these days of digital communication, they can pick up inconsistencies more easily
than ever.

A brand with integrity needs to be consistent across every layer of a firm, starting
with the employees on the inside, and radiating out to the marketplace and clients.

It is incredibly important that the branding demonstrates a commitment to values

and client benefits which are consistent from deep inside the business, and are
carried right through to each client interaction.

It is critical for firms to do the work to understand which aspects of their brand are
most appreciated by clients. In this regard, look for emotional and values-based
differentiation, rather than functional areas of expertise, which can change over
time.

A clearly understood brand proposition acts as the anchor for the brand - a clear
identity that allows clients to begin to respect the firm's integrity.

The proven benefits of having a strong legal brand are clear:

- Easier client recognition: Reduces client recruitment and advertising costs so you
can grow your business faster.

- Expressing your competitive advantage: Gives you an advantage over your

competitors and protects the value of your business.

- Expressing your position and space in the market: You become known in the
market as standing for and owning a position that your competitors cannot claim.

- Increased response rates: Tapping client benefits in branding increases the

reaction rate from your activities.

- Lowers costs of communication to clients: Brand consistency can dramatically

lower the cost of communicating to your clients.

- Builds affinity: Great clients love to be associated with a great legal brand.

- Recruitment of new employees: Great staff want to be associated with and work
for a great legal brand.

Marketing is no longer considered a back-office support function, but as a "core

function," critical to the growth and success of legal firms. Top firms are making
transitions in their approaches to branding, recognising their brand is a
sophisticated way to engage and obtain a unique, consistent and evocative status
in the marketplace.

Branding is simply the expression of your firm's competitive advantage in

everything you do. It is an expression of your business strategy - not just a logo,
nameplate or a brochure. Brand integrity is more than image - it is the prerequisite
to establishing a reputation for integrity, delivering consistent client value - exactly
as promised.

The challenge for legal firms is to make a stand on their point of difference, their
values, the benefit they provide to their clients and their staff, and an effective and
successful brand will communicate all this to clients, competitors, the market and
the general public.

Sue-Ella McDowall is the CEO of McDowall creative design company.

Lawyers and Accountants Once Put Integrity First

MARK W. EVERSONJUNE 18, 2011

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

Share

Tweet

Email

More

Save

Indianapolis

NEARLY a year after President Obama signed into law a huge overhaul of financial
regulations, little on Wall Street seems to have changed. Regulators appear to be
dragging their feet on finalizing the tough new rules that the law, known as Dodd-
Frank, authorized them to write. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has yet
to get off the ground. State attorneys general are still pressing mortgage servicers
for a financial settlement over the widespread fraud and abuse in lending practices.

It will take decades to fully untangle the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, but as
our economy fitfully heals, it would be prudent to ask whether lawyers and
accountants offer the same protection against corporate misconduct that they once
did.
Three or four decades ago, investors and regulators could rely on these
professionals to provide a check on corporate risk-taking. But over time, attorneys
and auditors came to see their practices not as independent firms that strengthen
the integrity of capitalism, but as businesses measured chiefly by the earnings of
their partners.

When my father finished Harvard Law School in 1948, he went to work at one of the
best law firms in New York. It was an era in which top-end legal work for the nations
biggest companies was handled by a limited number of firms that drew their
entering lawyers from a handful of schools. But that didnt mean instant prosperity
for the new attorney. Earning $3,600 a year, my dad shared a two-bedroom
apartment in Greenwich Village with three classmates. At the time a United States
District Court judge was paid a salary of $15,000. Today, a judges salary has gone
up slightly more than tenfold, a bit more than the increase in inflation. A new lawyer
at the firm where my father worked, however, is pulling down well over 40 times
what my dad first earned.

I also began my career in New York, in 1976, as an auditor with one of what was
then the Big Eight (now the Big Four accounting firms). Salaries were increasing, but
top-tier accounting and law firms were still operating pretty much as they always
had. To be sure, you lived well. But moving up the ladder, you didnt expect to get
rich. Wealth was reserved for business owners (and generally for corporate
executives), talented investors and investment bankers who risked their own
capital. Ones stature derived from the respect accorded an independent
professional. The mission of the junior accountant or lawyer was clear to all: help
clients adhere to professional standards and follow the law. Beyond that, do your
best to differentiate your firm based on superior service.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Necessarily, the actions of outside professionals were guided by a cautious

orientation. I remember one partner advising a bunch of young auditors examining
the financial statements of several of the biggest companies in the world, If you try
hard enough, you can always make the numbers add up. His point was clear:
technical compliance alone was not sufficient. Substance mattered.

Recent decades have seen a new model take root: a business plan tied to partner
earnings. Obviously, to pay employees more and to increase partner pay to its
present, staggering levels, billings needed to grow. Perhaps todays approach to fee
generation by leading law firms was best stated in a recent Wall Street
Journal article about partners billing over $1,000 per hour. Said one such lawyer,
The underlying principle is if you can get it, get it. Imagine a doctor saying that,
for attribution, about an organ transplant.
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Understandably, corporate clients are reluctant to pay through the nose for advice
on how to color safely within the lines. Whereas concern for a companys reputation
on the part of its executives historically served to reinforce the conservative
influence of the outside professionals, it is well documented that attitudes have
shifted within corporations themselves. One need look no further than General
Electrics no-longer-obscure tax department to see how traditional law and
accounting functions have morphed into profit centers.

Lawyers and accountants who were once the proud pillars of our financial system
have become the happy architects of its circumvention. Nowhere is this more the
case than in the world of tax law. Companies (and wealthy individuals) pay
handsomely for tax professionals not just to find the lines, but to push them ever
outward. During my tenure at the Internal Revenue Service, the low point came
when we discovered that a senior tax partner at KPMG (one of the Big Four, which
by virtue of their prominence set standards for the others) had advocated in
writing to leaders of the companys tax practice that KPMG make a
business/strategic decision to ignore a particular set of I.R.S. disclosure rules. The
reasoning was that the I.R.S. was unlikely to discover the underlying transactions,
and that even if we did, any penalties assessed could be absorbed as a cost of
doing business.

Just what role outside professional firms played in the genesis of the financial crisis
has not been adequately explored. Perhaps it never will be. But at a minimum, we
know that the widespread documentation problems associated with bank
foreclosures demonstrate that in too many instances, attorneys and accountants
abandoned their duties to assure integrity. Further, it seems unlikely that
professionals will, of their own initiative, return anytime soon to their traditional
posts as vigilant sentries guaranteeing the financial systems integrity.

WHAT should be done? For starters, Congress should take a hard look at the
doctrine of attorney-client privilege as it applies to corporations. Communications
pertaining to patents, or threatened or actual litigation, should remain protected.
But communications about, say, commercial transactions and financing and even
government-mandated filings and disclosures might not. Simply stated, lawyers will
be less likely to stretch the acceptable to earn a high fee or secure repeat business
if their counsel is subject to more outside scrutiny.

This would no doubt change the way regulators and prosecutors examine the roles
of outside lawyers and law firms when investigating significant corporate failures
a good thing, in my view.
To open this can of worms would touch off howls of outrage from the American Bar
Association and others. Nevertheless, such a debate would be healthy, especially
when policy makers are struggling to find the proper distinction between the rights
and protections afforded companies versus those granted to individuals, notably in
the political process.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

A second idea is for corporations to reassess their compensation practices for

financial and legal executives. Just as some large businesses are moving to separate
the position of board chairman from that of chief executive in order to provide for
stronger governance, companies might also consider development of a new pay
scheme for their financial and legal personnel. This would mean paying handsome,
multiyear fixed salaries to the chief financial officer, the general counsel and their
top deputies but without offering the opportunity for equity participation. Such an
approach would sharply limit the temptation to inflate shareholder value at the
expense of business substance.

Big businesses have always sought to gain competitive advantage over others and
certainly to minimize taxes, as have any number of taxpayers. Fair enough. But we
have seen that globalization, business complexity and an unworkable tax code have
obscured the understanding of risk. Politicians are reviewing our system of
corporate taxation none too soon if our nation is to prosper as it has in the past.
We should look at all the moving parts in our financial system starting with the
outside professionals not just Wall Street and Washington.

Mark W. Everson, the commissioner of the Indiana Department of Workforce

Development, was the commissioner of the I.R.S. from 2003 to 2007.

The honest lawyer

11 July 2011

Murray Landis

0
Lawyers are supposed to be people of the highest integrity and honesty in their
personal dealings. So what's gone wrong? Middletons partner, Murray Landis,
writes.

Lawyers are supposed to be people of the highest integrity and honesty in

their personal dealings. So what's gone wrong? Middletons partner,
Murray Landis, writes.

Lawyers are one of the most tightly regulated service providers with
statutory and professional obligations to act honestly and with fidelity in
the interests of their employers and clients and as officers of the court? So
why are there so many disparaging jokes about lawyers?

Perhaps it is because those two obligations are actually in conflict.

Lawyers, in-house or otherwise, have a duty to act as zealous advocates of
their organisations or clients. For in-house counsel their job involves
finding ways to achieve what their management want and advancing their
interests in ways which are lawful. But what is lawful is not always black
and white. Are in-house counsel expected to suppress individual moral
opinions and ethical concerns to be effective advocates for their
organisations? Aren't in-house lawyers supposed to be accountable for
what their management team decide to do?

On the other hand, in-house lawyers are expected to be trustees of the

legal system, advancing the interests of justice and truth.
One of the greatest of Australia's High Court Judges, Sir Owen Dixon, once
remarked that the pursuit of truth is not a matter which concerns either
the parties to litigation or their personal representatives. The object is
always victory, not abstract truth.

Lawyers are supposed to be people of the highest integrity and honesty in

their personal dealings, so that clients can feel secure in confiding in
them. So when a lawyer gets paid to achieve what their organisation or
client wants, even if it involves stretching what the client is legally bound
to do or not do, it's hardly surprising honest lawyer jokes provoke so much
mirth.

The problem is that the boundaries of professional responsibility have

been eroded. The professional conduct rules are no more than signposts
pointing a general direction to go, not fences which prescribe strict limits
on how far a lawyer can wander from the path.

At the same time the whole notion of ethics in law has been expanded by
new statutory concepts of misleading and deceptive conduct, unfair
contracts, obligations to consider the purpose of legislation and not just
its strict words. The courts themselves have expanded concepts of
unconscionable conduct.

This places lawyers in a very difficult position advising their organisations

about their legal rights, when their aim can be the exploitation of
ambiguities and uncertainty in the law in their own favour.

Is it part of the job of in-house lawyers to help their organisations to avoid

obligations which the community rightly or wrongly believes they should
bear?

In-house lawyers are in a very difficult position, they do not have the
ability to choose who they act for or to reject cases or clients they find
morally repugnant. Their choice is to resign and find alternative
employment.
Nonetheless in-house lawyers, like lawyers in private practice, are
sometimes asked to advise clients how to sabotage the spirit and integrity
of the law occasionally seeking to exhaust the resources of less well
funded adversaries. Helping clients do this turns the legal system into a
device for evading the very rules it is designed to enforce, and worse,
using officers of the court to do it.

No wonder depression in the legal profession is higher than in almost any

other profession!

An in house lawyer needs personal courage, ethics and skill to have a real
role as a moral compass for their organisation. Unlike the rest of the
community, lawyers have a professional obligation to act ethically and
therefore to advise them on the right direction to go and the right thing to
do.

A large part of the problem for lawyers is that the professional conduct
rules have been designed as a consumer protection measure to address
imbalance in the power relationship between the lawyer and ordinary
consumers of legal services.

For those lawyers who act for large corporations and for in-house lawyers,
the professional conduct rules are often not of much help.

The power imbalance in the relationship is in favour of the client.

In-house lawyers working for large corporations are expected to

understand "commercial reality" that is often nothing more than an
exhortation to greed.

The former Chief Justice of New South Wales, Mr Justice Spiegelman, once
said "a market wakes up every morning with a completely blank mind, like
Noddy."
If in-house lawyers are to be professionals, then while they must have
regard to the market, they must not act as if they are part of the market.
There is more to being a good lawyer than that.

There is no doubt it is very hard to do the right thing as a lawyer, but as

Mr Miyagi said to his young student Daniel-san in The Karate Kid:

"Must talk

Walk on the road

Walk left side safe

Walk right side safe

Walk middle sooner or later get the squish just like grape

Understand?"

Jurisprudence: Justice, Fidelity & Integrity of Law & Lawyers

We demand justice of our laws, but we know laws often fail to meet this
demand. We also demand fidelity to law of lawyers and judges, sometimes
even in the face of law's injustice, and expect lawyers to act in ways that
we would condemn if done by lay people. We seek to justify these
worrisome demands by appeal to notions of professionalism, the
adversary system, the rule of law, and democracy. But, is it possible for
lawyers to maintain their own integrity in the face of such apparent
conflicts? Can law shield lawyers from responsibility for the injustice or
wrongs it works in the world? Can law itself sustain its integrity and its
claim of respect and allegiance when it does such wrongs? What are we to
make for the notion of integrity-of lawyers and of law-in the morally
compromised world in which we live and make a living? These are the core
questions addressed in this course.

Related Courses:

Professional Responsibility

Prerequisites:

Willingness to reflect systematically on personal and institutional aspects of the

practice of law.
Integrity

One of the guiding principles of our practice is integrity. It is extremely

important to us that our clients know and trust the lawyers and staff with
whom they work. Integrity is also fundamental to our practice. Our word is
our bond.

A Reputation for Excellence

Cohen, Placitella & Roth lawyers understand how valuable it is that

judges, opponents, fellow lawyers and our clients know that we mean
what we say. Indeed it is the indispensable quality of the legal profession.

Serving our Clients and the Courts

C/P/R lawyers have served on the Disciplinary Board of The Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania, been appointed to leadership positions by courts in
multi-district and complex litigation cases, served as court appointed
special master and served on the board of directors of local and state trial
lawyer organizations.

I am not out to rubbish judges, lawyers integrity Magu

In NATIONAL

February 25, 2016

Jonathan Hembe

0 comments

EFCC boss Ibrahim Magu

The Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr.
Ibrahim Magu, on Thursday said he was not out to rubbish Nigerian judges and
lawyers.

He said comments attributed to him in recent media reports regarding the conduct
of judicial officials, was not intended at impugning their integrity.

He said his comments and activities of the EFCC should not be interpreted to mean
a blanket indictment of all lawyers and judges but, rather directed at a few bad eggs
within the system.

Magu, who made the clarifications in a statement issued the EFCCs Head of Media
and Publicity, Mr. Wilson Uwujaren, however said few corrupt lawyers and judges
few will not be spared.
He said: There is no way one can make a blanket statement on the integrity of
lawyers and judges. Nigeria is blessed with some of the best lawyers and judges on
the African continent.

My worry is that the bad ones amongst them are giving the good ones a bad name.

Advertisement

There is no blanket condemnation of lawyers and judges, but the corrupt few will
not be spared.

He said the EFCC deeply appreciates the support of most conscientious, upright
and patriotic members of the bar and bench (including defence counsels), leading
to the commissions unbeaten prosecution and conviction record.

Magu added: Mindful of the fact that judges are constrained from publicly
responding to criticism against them, the commission only employs legal and
administrative procedures, including investigation of errant judicial officers and
laying complaints against them before the National Judicial Council (NJC).

In the same vein, the commission has charged to court and secured convictions
against a number of lawyers.

The EFCC chairman called on all patriotic members of the bar and the bench to join
the renewed campaign against corruption and money laundering, while exposing
the corrupt ones among them.

SCs Marquez calls integrity of lawyers

June 7, 2015 Admin 0 Comment

LAWYERS NIGHT. Supreme Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez (center) with
Gov. Edgar Chatto, IBP Bohol Pres. Ted Lagang and former IBP national director
Roland Inting during last nights induction of officers of IBP-Bohol at the Bohol
Tropics.

Cleanse not only your dockets but also the courts of corruption.

This was the challenge hurled to Bohols bar and bench by Court Administrator Jose
Midas P. Marquez on the occasion of the oath taking of new judges, prosecutors,
public attorneys and a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent.

Marquez called on the Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Bohol Chapter to serve as a
vehicle to check government corruption and oligarchic excesses recalling the
Supreme Courts joining the call of the business sector to create a culture of
integrity.

Speaking extensively of Integrity Initiative, a private and government campaign to

promote good governance, transparent business transactions and integrity in
governance, Marquez impressed on the lawyers as key partners; and instrumental
allies of the Supreme Court.

Marquez challenged the IBP Bohol Chapter under the leadership of Atty. Ted Lagang
to initiate a similar endeavor with a view to organizing members of the bar towards
an accountable government that is so essential in maintaining in our country our
treasured rule of law.

He was introduced by Manila based Boholano lawyer Roland Inting, former national
executive director of IBP.

Admitting that we cannot stop corruption in the judiciary alone Marquez stressed
the need for the cooperation of all stakeholders to ensure that our courts will remain
free from corruption and employ the most efficient processes to expedite the
resolution of cases.

Marquez, in closing pushed the pillars of the justice system in Bohol to pool their
efforts in eradicating corruption in the judiciary.

Serving as a law clerk in the Supreme Court since 1991, Marquez is an A.B.
Economics graduate from the Ateneo de Manila University class 87 and a holder of a
degree of Juris Doctor from the Ateneo Law School class 1993 and passed the Bar in
1994.
Lagang succeeded lawyer Menedio Thadeus Emem Bernido as IBP-Bohol president.
Atty Warren Yap, Jr. who is the IBP vice president delivered the welcome remarks of
last nights program held at the Bohol Tropics.
The officers of IBP Bohol were inducted by lawyer Gov. Edgar Chatto who also
delivered an inspirational message. (CMV)
Focus: Lawyers grabbing piece of integrity commissioner action

Monday, 08 July 2013 08:00 | Written By Michael McKiernan | |

Lawyers are grabbing a piece of the action as municipalities across the province
embrace the concept of having an integrity commissioner.

When Toronto appointed David Mullan to the job in 2004, he became the first
municipal integrity commissioner in Canada. The countrys largest city remains the
only municipality legally mandated to appoint one but since then, a further 28
Ontario cities have entered the field voluntarily.

A series of high-profile conflict cases in Mississauga,

Ont., and Toronto over the past couple of years have
raised the profile of the position, and while integrity
commissioners dont have to be lawyers, some
municipal practitioners are carving out a niche in the
area.

After 40 years in municipal law, Robert Swayze landed

his first integrity commissioner job in Oakville, Ont., in
2008. Five years later, he has added the municipalities
of Mississauga, Brantford, Guelph, Port Hope, and
Ottawa-area Carleton Place to a client list that now
accounts for the majority of his law practice.
He says the novelty of the position excites him.

Its an evolving field, changing all the time. Theres

such an enormous variety of issues that come up and Theres such an
youre always creating new law and new approaches, enormous variety of
which is a great feeling, says Swayze. issues that come up and
youre always creating
Some of his recent mandates highlight the range of new law and new
issues: One involved a councillor accused of giving approaches, which is a
preferential treatment to a real estate agent in her great feeling, says Robert
monthly newsletter while another concerned a deputy Swayze.
mayor accused by the mayor of sending inappropriate
and unprofessional e-mails that were offensive about town staff to fellow councillors
and members of the public.

The findings cleared the councillor of breaching the code of conduct but advised her
to stop endorsing businesses in her newsletter. In the other case, the findings
recommended a seven-day pay suspension that would continue until the deputy
mayor ended his offensive e-mail habit.

One problem with a caseload that runs the gamut from the deadly serious to the
apparently trivial is that it attracts questions over the cost and value of the integrity
commissioner position. Last year, Guelph Coun. Bob Bell questioned whether we
should even have an integrity commissioner at all after Swayze delivered a
$10,000 bill for reviewing a newspaper article in which councillors criticized city
staff.

There is no value in what he did, Bell told the Guelph Mercury after Swayze
recommended no further action against councillors who had inadvertently breached
the citys code of conduct.

In Toronto, Mayor Rob Fords frequent run-ins with integrity commissioner Janet
Leiper made her one of his chief enemies before recent scandals overtook them in
the headlines. Leipers report into Fords use of city letterhead to solicit donations
for his football charity, which she found was a breach of the citys code of conduct,
was at the heart of an almost-successful attempt to remove him from office. Ford
has since called the work of Leipers office politically motivated and a waste of
taxpayers money.

It comes with the territory. It doesnt bother me, says Swayze of the public
criticism.

Obviously, if you say something negative about a councillor, theyre not going to
be happy. But I think most have embraced it.

Harold Elston joined the integrity commissioner game just over a year ago with his
appointment by the Township of Georgian Bay. He says councillors there have
welcomed an independent figure between them and complaining residents.

One of problems for municipalities is people dont always understand the role of
council, so the process is an opportunity to clear the air, to meet with people, and
understand their view. For councillors, its a chance for them to tell their side of the
story, which I think they welcome, says Elston, whos looking to expand his
integrity commissioner practice with other municipalities.

London, Ont., lawyer Greg Levine has tried to assuage fears in his community that
the cost of hiring an integrity commissioner could easily spiral after opponents of
the idea on the citys council suggested it could cost as much as $500,000 per year.

A more reasonable estimate would be $20,000, according to Levine, who already

performs the job for municipalities in Waterloo, Kitchener, West Lincoln, and
Lambton Shores, Ont. His typical deal sees him charge a $2,000 retainer plus $150
per hour for reports and investigations. Thats for a lawyer with 25 years of
experience. Tell me in Toronto where you can get that. . . . It is possible to make it
cost-effective, says Levine.

Levine commends municipalities for creating codes of conduct to regulate the

behaviour of councillors but sees the job as unfinished without the appointment of
an integrity commissioner.

Its important to have a code of conduct in order to establish knowable standards.

But in order to hold anyone accountable, you also have to have some way of
enforcing it, he says. I dont buy the idea that its not worth the cost. Even in
bigger municipalities where theyre essentially on salary working two, three or more
days a week, thats a lot cheaper than hiring a fancy firm at $600 or $700 an hour.

He says cities can wring even more value by introducing an advice function to the
role that would allow councillors to approach the commissioner at the moment a
potential conflict comes up rather than waiting for a complaint.

In Mississauga, Swayze gets calls all the time from councillors who want to know
when or if they should recuse themselves, sometimes during meetings or just ahead
of votes at council. He says sensitivity to conflicts is particularly high in the city
after the 2011 judicial inquiry into the actions of Mayor Hazel McCallion.

That was a major multimillion-dollar inquiry. If they had had an integrity

commissioner, the mayor could have called and the whole thing might have been
avoided, says Swayze.

I give them advice always in writing. If theyre contemplating some course of

action where concern might arise over a conflict, they can call me or write me an e-
mail, and I can give them advice in writing, which is then binding on me should a
complaint come in later. That kind of function can help prevent a lot higher costs.

OUR LAWYERS C

The Lawyer's Oath

 By J. Jose L. Sabio, Jr.

The Oath: The Lawyer's Ideal

What is an oath? Webster defines it as: A solemn appeal to God, or in a wider sense, to any sacred or
revered person or sanction for the truth of an affirmation or declaration or in witness of the inviolability of a
promise or undertaking. As early as Alvarez vs. CFI, the Supreme Court explained its meaning in this
wise:

In its broadest sense, an oath includes any form of attestation by which a party signifies that he is bound in
conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully. It is an outward pledge given by the person taking it,
that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God.

Section 17 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that an applicant who has passed the required
examination, or has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and subscribed
before the Supreme Court an oath of office. The new lawyer swears before a duly constituted authority as an
attestation that he/she takes on the duties and responsibilities proper of a lawyer. More particularly, form 28
of the judicial standard forms prescribes the following oath to be taken by the applicant:

I___________ of ___________ do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court; I will not wittingly nor
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will
delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon
myself this voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

The taking of this oath is a condition to the admission to practice law and may only be taken before the
Supreme Court by a person authorized by the high court to engage in the practice of law. And what is the
nature of a lawyer's oath? In the case of Sebastian vs. Calis the Supreme Court held that: A lawyer's oath
are not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and kept inviolable. The
substance and gravity behind these words may be understood in the light of the substance and gravity
behind the oath being taken. In a sense, the oath embodies the ideals by which a lawyer lives by in the
practice of the legal profession. This is why the lawyer's oath has been likened to a condensed version of the
canons of professional responsibility. This seems to have been confirmed in Endaya vs. Oca, where it was
held that: the lawyer's oath embodies the fundamental principles that guide every member of the legal
fraternity. From it springs the lawyer's duties and responsibilities that any infringement thereof can cause his
disbarment, suspension or other disciplinary actions.

In the words of the Supreme Court, an oath is any form of attestation by which a party signifies that he is
bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully. What then does a lawyer promise to perform
faithfully and truthfully when he takes on the oath upon being admitted to the practice of law? It is the very
practice of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer. The gravity of the oath is grounded on two important
things: on the gravity of a lawyer's duties and on the fact that he makes a solemn promise before God to
undertake these duties faithfully. When a great amount of trust is placed on such an office, then a
corresponding sense of integrity and responsibility is expected of those who have taken on that office. The
legal profession is one such office laden with a great amount of trust. In the hands of the lawyer is entrusted
not only the power to steer the course of some client's personal or business future but more importantly, the
very nature of the legal profession presupposes a certain moral burden that demands personal integrity. As
stated by the Supreme Court:

Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also
throughout their legal career, in order to maintain one's good standing in that exclusive and honored
fraternity. Good moral character is more than just the absence of bad character. Such character expresses
itself in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is
wrong. This must be so because vast interests are committed to his care; he is the recipient of unbounded
trust and confidence; he deals with his client' s property, reputation, his life, his all.
A lawyer is said to be the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the
administration of law and the dispensing of justice. For this reason, a lawyer's oath impresses upon him the
responsibilities of an officer of the court upon whose shoulders rest the grave responsibility of assisting
courts in the proper, fair, speedy and efficient administration of justice.

In fact, it may be understood that the words contained in the oath of office summarize the main duties and
responsibilities a lawyer is supposed to take on in the practice of law. In other words, every time an oath of
office is taken, the person making the statement in effect states that in taking on the oath he/she promises
to conscientiously fulfill the duties entrusted to his office. Section 20 of Rule 138 enumerates what these
duties are. It is the duty of an attorney -

(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the
laws of the Philippines;

(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;

(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appearing to him to be just, and such
defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law;

(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent
with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false
statement of fact or law;

(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client,
and to accept no compensation in connection with his clients' business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval;

(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a
party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;

(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any
man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;

(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed;

(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal
opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no
person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.

In order to fulfill these duties, every lawyer is expected to live by a certain mode of behavior now distilled in
what is known as the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Code mandates upon each lawyer, as his duty
to society, the obligation to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Specifically, he is forbidden to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. In essence, all
that is contained in this Code is succinctly summarized in the oath of office taken by every lawyer. It is of
little surprise to find that in Magdaluyo vs. Nace the Supreme Court declares that the lawyer's oath is a
source of obligations and violation thereof is a ground for suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary
action. In the case of Businos vs. Ricafort, the Supreme Court also held that:

By swearing the lawyer's oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an
indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice a vital function of democracy, a
failure of which is disastrous to society. While the duty to uphold the constitution and obey the laws is an
obligation imposed upon every citizen, a lawyer assumes responsibilities over and beyond the basic
requirements of good citizenship. As servant of the law, a lawyer ought to make himself an example for
others to emulate. He should be possessed of and must continue to possess good moral character.

In Brion Jr. vs. Brillantes, Jr., the Supreme Court also ruled: the lawyer's primary duty as enunciated in
the attorney's oath is to uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law
and legal processes. That duty in its irreducible minimum entails obedience to the legal orders of the
court. The importance and significance in upholding the sanctity of a lawyer's oath have been highlighted
by the Supreme Court in the various rulings it made involving disciplinary actions against members of the
legal fraternity.

The Real World Of The Legal Practice

While it is true that these ideals by which every lawyer swears to live by remain sublime, the same ideals
often hardly motivate some lawyers in the real world of legal practice. Instead of high ideals, less honorable
reasons and more pragmatic considerations often financial and material in nature take hold of many a
cynical and hardened lawyer. This has been the cause of lament and expressions of grave concern by
honorable individuals, among them the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro. In an address
before members of the legal profession, he said:

Many a legal practitioner, forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted position as
an officer of the court, has allowed himself to become:

An instigator of controversy, instead of a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise;

A virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation, instead of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and
moral justice;

A mercenary purveying the benefits of his enlightened advocacy in direct proportion to a litigant's financial
posture, instead of a faithful friend of the courts in the dispensation of equal justice to rich and poor alike.

Though these words were expressed some time ago, yet is is sad to note that Chief Justice Ruiz's words still
ring loud and true today. The goal of remaining true to the ideals of the legal profession is hampered by the
seemingly irresistible influence and pressures of modern day commercialism in almost every facet of human
activity and endeavor. In various cases, the Supreme Court has denied applicant's petition to take the
lawyer's oath for grave misconduct or for any serious violation of the canons of professional responsibility
which puts in question the applicant's moral character. Moreover, a reading of the latest rulings of the
highest tribunal would reveal the lawyer's utter disregard, if not disdain, for the lawyer's oath.

In Vitriola vs. Dasig, a case for disbarment against an official of the commission on higher education charged
with gross misconduct in violation of the attorney's oath for having used her public office to secure financial
spoils, the Supreme Court, in ordering respondent's disbarment, held:

The attorney's oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer and any violation thereof is a
ground for disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary action. The attorney's oath imposes upon every
member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice.

Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of the code of professional responsibility. Respondent's demands
for sums of money to facilitate the processing of pending applications or requests before her office violates
such duty, and runs afoul of the oath she took when admitted to the bar.

The affirmation by a lawyer to uphold the law was the subject in De Guzman vs. De Dios. In this case where
respondent was charged for representing conflicting interest, found guilty and suspended for six months,
with a warning, the highest tribunal held:

To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to state the obvious, but such statement
can never be over-emphasized. Considering that, 'of all classes and professions, (lawyers are) most sacredly
bound to uphold and respect the law', it is imperative that they live by the law.

Accordingly, lawyers who violate their oath and engage in deceitful conduct have no place in the legal
profession. As a lawyer, respondent is bound by her oath to do no falsehood or consent to its commission
and to conduct herself as a lawyer to the best of her knowledge and discretion. The lawyer's oath is a source
of obligation and violation thereof is a ground for suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action. The
acts of respondent Atty. De Dios are clearly in violation of her solemn oath as a lawyer that this court will
not tolerate.
In Sevillano Batac, Jr., et al. vs. Atty. P. Cruz, Jr., the Supreme Court in ordering the suspension of
respondent, quoted Sec. 27 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, thus:

Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by supreme court; grounds therefor: A member of the
bar may be disbarred orsuspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or, other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do.

The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice. A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money
or malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his client. Such was the pronouncement of
the Supreme Court in ordering the disbarment of lawyer who converted the money of his client to his own
personal use without her consent. The lawyer's oath exhorts law practitioners not to wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same. In Young vs.
Batuegas, where respondent was suspended for six months for knowingly alleging an untrue statement of
fact in his pleading, the Supreme Court said, thus:

A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission to the bar that he will 'do no falsehood
nor consent to the doing of any in court' and he shall conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of
his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. He should bear in
mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the
facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at a correct conclusion.

The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and
pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his client's rights and is expected to
display the utmost zeal in defense of his client's cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth.

That a lawyer's oath are not mere facile words, drift and hollow, was applied by the Supreme Court in Vda.
De Rosales vs. Ramos, where a notary public commission was revoked and respondent disqualified from
being a notary public, in this manner: where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed
upon him by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of
any.

Indeed when an office entrusted with great responsibility and trust by society is violated and abused, one
finds truth in the expression corruptio optimi pessima (the corruption of the best is the worst). The words of
former Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals Pompeyo Dias cannot find a more relevant application:

There are men in any society who are so self-serving that they try to make law serve their selfish ends. In
this group of men, the most dangerous is the man of the law who has no conscience. He has, in the arsenal
of his knowledge, the very tools by which he can poison and disrupt society and bring it to an ignoble end.

A Return to Basic Ideals

With the glaring reality of legal practice evidenced by the increasing numbers of administrative cases filed
against lawyers in the Courts, it is no surprise therefore that legal ethics has been prescribed as a subject
under the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE). Moreover, of the 36 units prescribed under the
MCLE, six units pertain to legal ethics. There is clearly a perceived need to instill legal ethics in the practice
of the legal profession. The pressing need for legal ethics was highlighted by the Supreme Court in Endaya
vs. Oca:

For practical purposes, the lawyers not only represent the law; they are the law. With their ubiquitous
presence in the social milieu, lawyers have to be responsible. The problems they create in lawyering become
public difficulties. To keep lawyers responsible underlies the worth of the ethics of lawyering. Indeed, legal
ethics is simply the aesthetic term for professional responsibility.
Undoubtedly, faithful compliance and observance of the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility is
the main object of the MCLE. And to ensure success thereof, the Supreme Court, in its various
pronouncements in administrative cases filed against lawyers, has emphasized the lawyer's basic duties and
responsibilities. In a more recent ruling, the Supreme Court recapitulated the significance and importance of
the oath in this wise: This oath to which all lawyers have subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate
themselves to the pursuit of justice is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law to be forgotten
afterwards; nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep
inviolable at all times. By swearing the lawyer's oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law, as
well as instruments in the fair and impartial dispensation of justice.

Indeed, if the legal profession is to achieve its basic ideal to render public service and serve the ends of
justice, there is a need to unceasingly and constantly inculcate professional standards among lawyers. As
the Supreme Court in Cordon vs. Balicanta (supra), said: If the practice of law is to remain an honorable
profession and attain its basic ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and
principles, but should also in their lives accord continuing fidelity to them.

Conclusion

Law is a profession and lawyers have certain obligations to their clients and to the
court. These obligations are generally articulated in a Code of Ethics or Rules of
Practice.

In Vanuatu the Legal Practitioners Act (Cap119) makes provision for the discipline of
lawyers on the grounds of misconduct (s.9 (2)). The Rules made under the Act make
provision for an allegation or complaint of professional misconduct or unprofessional
conduct. These words are not sufficiently defined in the Act, although they have been
given particular meaning over a series of cases. Neither the Act nor the Rules
prescribe in any way the ethical obligations of lawyers. It would therefore be left to
the Court, based on the case law, to determine whether a lawyer was in breach of
professional ethics.

This is unsatisfactory. The public must be able to have confidence in the legal
profession and the administration of justice. To this end it is desirable that clearly
articulated rules of conduct are introduced - not only so that the profession is aware of
their ethical obligations but also because this is in the public interest. In the present
framework it would be exceedingly difficult and most unlikely for a lawyer who is
abusing their position of trust or who is in breach of their ethical obligations to their
client to be disciplined. In most cases the client will be unaware that what has
happened is a breach of professional ethics. In other cases, without clear Rules or
guidelines, misconduct, unless gross and obvious, will go unnoticed and unpunished.
Professional Codes of Ethics are one of the most important characteristics of a
profession.
Professional ethics are frequently formulated in Codes of Conduct or Rules of
Professional Practice, which illustrate the high standards on which reputations for
professionalism rest. .... [P]rofessional Codes or Rules are designed in part to help
reassure the public of two conditions. These conditions are that any particular set of
professional services is being given not only by (i) properly qualified or technically
expert persons but also (ii) by persons whose professional standards merit the high
degrees of public trustworthiness which are typically required of professionals.

In those jurisdictions where comprehensive Rules have been developed, the focus
should be on the nature and rationale for their enforcement. If 'public interest' then the
question 'what are you protecting the public from?' becomes relevant.

Secondly, if lawyers are not open to accepting the importance of regulation in the
public interest then the experience of other places is that it will be imposed - either by
the courts or by government. The experience in Fiji and the difficulties that have been
faced by various Australian Law Society's is evidence of this.

Finally, there is a growing concern over the subordination of service and

professionalism to profit, personal aims and ambitions. We need to remind ourselves
of the honourable nature of the profession otherwise there is little point talking about
ethics. It is the substance and not the form that matters here. Comprehensive Codes of
Ethics do not guarantee ethical practice; rather, this lies in the fundamental nature of
being 'called to the Bar'. Fifty years ago, in the case of In re John Cameron Foster
(1950) 50 SR NSW 149 Street CJ observed:

It is to be borne in mind that all barristers are members of a profession as distinct from
being engaged in a trade. A trade or business is an occupation or calling in which the
primary object is the pursuit of pecuniary gain. Honesty and honourable dealing are,
of course, expected from every man, whether he be engaged in professional practice
or in any other gainful occupation. But in a profession, pecuniary success is not the
only goal. Service is the ideal, and the earning of remuneration must always be
subservient to this main purpose"