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 selfinterested, 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 publics 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 highstandard. 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.