A review: Images of Lawyers

“There is a loftier ambition than to merely stand high in the world – that is to stoop down and lift mankind a little higher.” – Van Dyke

Lawyering is a noble profession imbibed by the spirit of social justice and humanitarianism. They are officers of the court whose aim is to stand for justice and equity. And the justice they believed in stemmed from a humanitarian belief. This is reflected in our Constitution and in some provisions of law such as Article 19 of the Civil Code: “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.”

However, for long the society has harboured too many views about the profession. It does not absolutely believe in its nobility. This can be dated back even when Shakespeare wrote the line “to kill all the lawyers.” The problem presented is that the drafting of lawyers’ professional rules has been complicated because of the different perception of the public towards the bar.

In an article written by Zacharias, The Images of Lawyers, he postulated what the codifiers most probably had in mind in creating the code of ethics for lawyers. As the title conveys, it talks about different pictures of lawyers all printed in the words of the code of professional rules: the crooks, the legally honest but self-interested, the honest and well-meaning but needing guidance, the highly respectable self-regulating, the client protectors, the independent and objective, the ordinary agents, the officers of the courts, and the business persons. All of these images at some point are true. The reason why the writer pointed these out is because he believes the rules in effect come out as an unstable book of guidance. There are conflicting ideas conveyed and as a result there are conflicting rules to be obeyed. He believes this creates confusion as to how the lawyer should act.

Although the writer may not be a Filipino writing about the Code of Professional Ethics of the lawyers in the Philippines, his opinion may speak truth about the public’s opinion of the bar, the way the rules are codified as a reaction to it, and the confusion it may create as well as the possibility of frequent violations. For example, there is a thin line between the provisions on lawyer-client fiduciary relationship and the provisions on the lawyer being sworn officer of the court found in the Code of Professional Ethics.

On his first axiom on how the drafters should remedy the rules, Zacharias pointed out that the drafters should have recognized that the views toward the lawyers do not necessarily define them nor describe their character. Indeed so. If the rules are created as a reaction to the views of the public, then the tendency would be that it fails to clarify the standards a lawyer must uphold. They would fall as an opinion column. As what the writer says, drafters should have at least a unified idea of the roles of the bar.

On the second axiom, in effect to the first, the rules become too high-standard. These “super human rules”, aside from having conflicting provisions, become a leeway for their violations. Although, I believe the Code of Professional Ethics for Filipino lawyers is quite reasonable and just, and not as the writer calls it ‘superhuman rules’; but the leeway for non-compliance with some of the rules are those conflicting provisions. That is why drafters should have been careful in creating the rules. They should not have at least codified them based on an untrue paradigm, says the third axiom.

Anent these axioms, there are three drafting postulates Zacharias imparts. One is that drafters should recognize that there are also laws other than the rules that guide, if not govern, the conduct of lawyers. It could be the Constitution, the Civil Code, the Revised Penal Code and other laws which relate to lawyers’ conduct. Two is that drafters should be realistic about the nature of the code. Three is that they should be realistic about the nature of lawyers. I believe the writer has made its point in saying that there must be a balanced description of the role of lawyers in promoting justice with his conscience by his side and in assisting clients as their ally.

The Images of Lawyers is concluded with a suggestion that whether they are prohibitory or directory, the rules should have been created with an honest and proper regard of the context of issues as to the role of lawyers.

I put my sympathy to the idea that there are still lawyers ready to bend down and assist their clients, to the extent that they are deemed allies. They also are keen on lifting mankind a little higher by trying to uphold justice. And it is sad how there are varying negative images of lawyers portrayed in the minds of the people in the society. Even sadder is that the drafters codified rules in reaction to these images.