LEGAL ETHICS IN A CHANGING SOCIETY

I. INTRODUCTION

In the Philippines, the standards of legal ethics are articulated in the Code of Professional
Responsibility. These are as a set of duties that lawyers have towards our society, the courts,
their clients and even their colleagues in the profession. In law school, legal ethics has only been
tackled through the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility and related jurisprudence.
The focus of the subjects Legal Ethics is on what a lawyer should or should not do in order for
him to avoid getting disbarred.

Since Law firms aren’t what they used to be, does that mean that ethical standards that were
devised for a more traditional industry need amending, too? It’s a challenge the legal industry
has been facing and faces in the years ahead. Much has changed today, as the growth of
technology and globalization has permanently altered the legal landscape. “Today, there’s an
entirely new vocabulary, new knowledge, new skills, a new way of doing things,” Perlman, dean
and professor of law at Suffolk University Law School said. Ethics and professional standards – in
order to remain relevant to the practitioners, which they are aimed at regulating – must evolve
and with the development of the environment in which they are applied.

“The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show
that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment
of such privilege” (Bongolonta v. Castillo, 240 SCRA 310 [1951]).

The attorney is a person from whom the highest standards are expected by the profession
and the court. The profession itself is not a mere calling or occupation by which a person earns
his living. An attorney is a member of a learned, respected and honorable profession and, by
entering it, he pledges himself with total and unquestionable integrity to society at large, to the
courts and to the profession and only the very highest standard of conduct and repute and good
faith are consistent with membership of the profession which can indeed only function effectively
if it inspires the unconditional confidence and trust of the public.

The image and standing of the profession are judged by the conduct and reputation of all its
members and, to maintain this confidence and trust, all members of the profession must exhibit
the qualities set out above at all times.’ The ethical rules applied in the legal profession have
developed and been upheld by practitioners for a number of years, if not for centuries. There are
wide-ranging similarities with respect to the core substance of ethical standards applied by
various regulators in the legal profession across the world, and many of the ethical rules (for
example, confidentiality, acting in the best interests of clients and the avoidance of conflicts of
interests) have broad universal application across jurisdictions.

The landscape in which legal practice is conducted has changed considerably – since some of
the ethical rules were initially developed – but this has not diminished the core principles. Legal
practices, individual practitioners, the form and manner in which legal services are provided and
the nature of the environment they operate in, have also undergone certain changes in this time.
In the Philippines, the need to keep abreast with societal change is embedded in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Although the Code of Professional Responsibility is useful, a mere cataloging of what and
how a lawyer should act for him to avoid getting disbarred is an inadequate measure to stop
them from creating negative ripples in our society. To avoid making mistakes and lapses in
judgment, lawyers should be reminded of the utmost importance of their role in the society as
well as their obligations, ethically and legally. Every once in a while, they should also be refreshed
of what they have learned in law school when they were still students and were still aspiring
lawyers who want to someday make a change in the world. One way to remind them of this is
for them to undergo the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education or MCLE.

II. DISCUSSION

The Code of Professional Responsibility was promulgated by the Supreme Court on June 21,
1988. It was initially drafted by the Committee on Responsibility, Discipline and Disbarment of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, composed of Dean Irene Cortes as Chairman and Justice
Caroline Grino-Aquino, Attys. Gonzalo W. Gonzales, Marcelo B. Feman, Camilo Quiason, Jose F.
Espinosa and Carmelo V. Sison as members, with former Chief Justice Concepcion and former
Justice Jose B.L. Reyes as consultants, and Prof. Myma S. Feliciano and Atty. Concepcion Lim-
Jardeleza as resource persons. Chapter 1 discusses the Lawyer and the Society, Canons 4, 5, and
6 being of utmost importance when it comes to legal ethics and societal change.

 CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
 CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND
CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.
 CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE,
HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
  CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM
BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT
OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
 CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH
STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW
STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
 CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE
DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.

The obligation of lawyers to undergo a program of MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL

EDUCATION (MCLE) program is sanctioned by Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
when it states that “A lawyer should keep abreast of legal developments, participate in
continuing legal education programs…”. It is also deemed an integral part of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) mandate because Rule 139-A, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides: “The fundamental purposes of the Integrated Bar shall be to elevate the standards of
the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the bar to discharge its
public responsibility more effectively.”

The mission of the MCLE is “To ensure that all members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and
enhance the standards of the practice of law” while its vision is “To facilitate a convenient and
efficient process for all lawyers to comply with their requirements of mandatory continuing legal
education”.

Satisfaction of the MCLE requirement is computed based on Credit Units, or the measure of
compliance with the MCLE requirement under the Rules based on the category of the lawyer’s
participation in the MCLE activity, and on Credit Hours, or the actual time spent in an education
activity (actual instruction, speaking time or participation) computed in hours to the nearest one-
quarter hour (15 minutes) reported in decimals.

The required MCLE subjects are the following: Legal Ethics, Trial and Pre-Trial Skills,
Alternative Dispute Resolution, Updates on Substantive and Procedural Laws and Jurisprudence,
Legal Writing and Oral Advocacy, International Law and International Conventions. The other
MCLE prescribed subjects are the following: Technology and the Law, Law and Economics,
Environmental Law, International Legal Processes, Transnational Business Transactions, Law
Reforms in Specific Areas, and Law as a Means Of Social Control.
 The initial compliance period shall be from April 15, 2001 up to April 14, 2004. All succeeding
compliance periods shall begin the day after the end of the preceding compliance period. The
initial compliance period for members newly admitted or readmitted to the IBP shall begin on
the first day of the month of admission or readmission and end on the same day as that of all
other members.

Credit units will be given only for the time spent in legal education activities which have been
previously approved by the Committee and conducted by an accredited provider. Every approved
education activity shall be conducted for at least one hour. However, if it should exceed one hour,
one-half credit unit shall be given for every half hour beyond the initial hour.

In complying with the procedure, each member shall secure from the MCLE Committee a
Compliance Card before the end of his compliance period. The member shall complete the card
by attesting under oath that he has complied with the education requirement or that he is
exempt. Such compliance card must be returned to the Committee not later than the day after
the end of the member’s compliance period.

There is noncompliance if there is : failure to complete the education requirement within

the compliance period; failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption; failure to
provide satisfactory evidence of compliance within the prescribed period; failure to satisfy the
education requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance within sixty (60) days from
receipt of non-compliance notice; failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period;
and any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or
evade compliance with the MCLE requirements.

Members failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice and will be given sixty (60)
days from the date of notification to file a response clarifying the deficiency or otherwise showing
compliance with the requirements. Members given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-
Compliance Notice may use this period to attain the adequate number of credit units for
compliance. The credit units earned during the sixty (60) day period may only be counted toward
compliance with the prior compliance period requirement unless units in excess may be counted
toward meeting the current compliance period requirement.

Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 shall complete every three (3) years at least
thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. A
member who fails to comply with the requirements after the sixty (60) day period for compliance
has expired shall be listed as a delinquent member of the IBP and shall not be permitted to
practice law until such time as adequate proof of compliance is received by the MCLE Committee.
A member who shall be listed as delinquent shall pay a non-compliance fee of P1,000.

III. SUMMARY

During the years 2012 to 2016, the court disbarred 40 lawyers, suspended 224 from the
practice of law, suspended 33 from both the practice of law and notarial practice, and suspended
11 from notarial practice. From the judicial ranks, from 2010 to 2016, the court dismissed from
the service one Sandiganbayan justice, 16 regional trial court judges, nine municipal trial court
level judges, and one Shari’a circuit court judge. Lawyers violate their ethical code for a multitude
of reasons. The top reason being personal – greed. While the other reasons are cultural,
educational, societal, and the political ones. There is also a perception that there has been a
watering down of compliance or a derogation from adherence to the high standards of ethical
conduct.

‘The sad truth is becoming more and more apparent; our profession has seen a steady decline
by casting aside established traditions and canons of professional ethics that evolved over
centuries … When we speak of the decline in “ethical” standards, we should not use the term
“ethics” to mean only compliance with the Ten Commandments or other standards of common,
basic morality … A lawyer can [adhere to all these requirements] and still fail to meet the
standards of a true profession, standards calling for fearless advocacy within established canons
of service’ (Peter MacFarlane ‘The importance of ethics and the application of ethical principles
to the legal profession’ (2002) 6 Journal of South Pacific Law (www.paclii.org, accessed 4-10-
2018).

To remedy this, the court has decreed adherence to Bar Matter No. 85, which provides the
purpose of MCLE which is: “Continuing legal education is required of members of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law
and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the
practice of law.”

However, the lawmakers should make changes to the law so as to keep it abreast with recent
technological developments. Lawyers should be given an option to complete their MCLE
requirements online or a combination of online MCLE and physical presence in lectures. This
would ensure compliance because lawyers will no longer be expected to physically show up at
lectures and can do the lectures at the comforts of their own homes.
IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Agpalo, Ruben, Legal Ethics, 1990.

 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 201
 Loewey, K. (2000, November 6). Lawyering for Social Change. Retrieved from
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2046&context=ulj
 Perlman, A. (2017, November 15). A Changing Law Landscape Means Changing Ethics
Standards. Retrieved from http://www.legalexecutiveinstitute.com/changing-ethics-
standards-aba-thomson-reuters-perlman/