c.

Comment on the ethical questions involved in Louis’ planned legal

strategy.

ii. On the insinuation about influence on the family court judge

The Family Court Judge’s job is to resolve issues that were not resolved during
mediation or negotiations of the division of marital property, spousal support,
and visitation and other like issues.1

Louis, as a rendering legal advice to Wendy, should not insinuate about

influence of the family court judge by telling that the latter was his uncle and
assured her that their case will be raffled to the said court.

Louis should give Wendy a just and fair judgment as to her case. A lawyer shall
not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system. This gross disrespect of the judicial system
shows that he is wanting in moral fiber and betrays the lack of integrity in his
character. The practice of law is a privilege, and respondent has repeatedly
shown that he is unfit to exercise it.

ii) Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons 15.06, 15.07

Rule 15.06. - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence
any public official, tribunal or legislative body.

Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the
laws and the principles of fairness.

The need for relying on the merits of a lawyers case, instead of banking on his
relationship with a member of the bench which tends to influence or gives the
appearance of influencing the court, cannot be overemphasized. It is
unprofessional and dishonorable, to say the least, to misuse a public office to
enhance a lawyers prestige. Public confidence in law and lawyers may be
eroded by such reprehensible and improper conduct.

1https://www.liveabout.com/what-role-does-the-family-court-judge-play-in-your-divorce-case-
1103283
The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private
interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that
they are in a special position to influence the judge.2

2 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/am_p_03_1690.htm