WHAT IS A LAWYER?

A lawyer gives legal advice to people, government agencies, and businesses and offer
representation to them when needed. They prepare legal documents and interpret laws,
regulations, and rulings.

How to Become a Lawyer

A lawyer spends an average of 7 years in college. This breaks down into 4 years of
undergraduate school and 3 years more of law school. A bachelor’s degree is required to enter
law school with preferable courses in English, public speaking, government, history, economics,
and math.

Most all law schools require an applicant to take a Law School Admissions Test (LSAT). To
finally become a lawyer, most states and jurisdictions want a Juris Doctor (J.D.) law degree, and
then you must pass the bar exam.

Job Description of a Lawyer

Lawyers represent clients in civil or criminal trial and present evidence for their defense. They
also advise their clients on their legal rights or obligations and counsel them on the best way to
precede according to their legal circumstances. A lawyer conducts research on legal issues and
is qualified to interpret laws, regulations, and rulings. They draw up legal documents like wills,
deeds, contracts, lawsuits, and appeals. They may also oversee legal assistants or paralegals.

A lawyer can specialize in many different areas of this profession. For instance, they may
choose to specialize in a certain area of law such as criminal law, defense, prosecution, tax, or
environmental law. Lawyers mostly work indoors and in office buildings, however some travel
may be required when meeting with clients or attending court hearings.

- Lawyers advise individuals, businesses, and government agencies on legal issues and
disputes, and represent them in court and legal transactions. Also called attorneys, lawyers
inform their clients about their legal rights and obligations, and help steer them through the
complexities of the law. They also advocate for their clients in court by presenting evidence and
making legal arguments. Lawyers conduct research and prepare documents, such as lawsuits,
wills, and contracts. They also oversee the work of paralegals and legal secretaries.

Lawyers work for law firms, governments, and corporations. In government, prosecutors are the
attorneys who file charges against those accused of violating the law, while public defenders
represent individuals who cannot afford to pay an attorney. Lawyers who work in law firms often
start as associates, and may advance to partnership, or part owner, in their firm. Those who do
not make partner after several years may be forced to leave, a practice known as “up or out.”

Lawyers may specialize in a subject area, such as environmental law, tax, intellectual property,
or family law. Most lawyers work in offices, and travel to visit clients or represent their clients in
court. They generally keep full-time hours, and overtime is common. Attorneys may face heavy
pressure at times. For example, during trials or when trying to meet deadlines. It usually takes
three years of law school after college to become a lawyer. All states require lawyers to pass
licensing tests called “bar exams” to practice law. Prior felony convictions may disqualify
candidates from practicing law.

Legal profession, vocation that is based on expertise in the law and in its applications. Although
there are other ways of defining the profession, this simple definition may be best, despite the
fact that in some countries there are several professions and even some occupations (e.g.,
police service) that require such expertise but that may not regarded as within the “legal
profession.”

The Importance of the Legal Profession in our Society

Typically, litigation lawyers should understand the basic principles of law and justice. Being a
legal professional can be tiring yet very much exciting and rewarding since he is capable of
affecting many of people's lives. The practice of law is indeed a great experience.

Like any other class of professionals, such as doctors, scientists and engineers, lawyers also
have a certain standard to follow, which the legal profession requires. They should set a good
example to people in abiding by the laws of the land. Their failure to do so may be considered
as grounds for the revocation of their licenses in practicing their profession.

Although there are lawyers who practice law in general, majority of them opt to have their fields
of specialization. Here is a list of some areas of law:

• Maritime Law attorneys - help clients in resolving legal cases like freight and passenger
vessel liability, oil pollution complaints, aquatic resources regulations, international trade,
maritime injuries, cargo disputes and others.

• Aviation Law attorneys - handle cases concerning air travel safety.

• Civil Rights litigators - defend the people's rights and privileges under the United States
Constitution. These include the right to suffrage, peaceful assembly, press freedom, right
against slavery, among others.

• Corporate lawyers - provide assistance to business entities regarding their creation,

organization and dissolution.

• Criminal Law attorneys - handle criminal cases or violations of public laws that may be
punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. They may act either as prosecutors or as defense
lawyers.

• Labor lawyers - act as advocates of good employer/employee relationship. They take

charge in handling cases such as employer abuse, harassments, wrongful termination,
employment disability and other labor law violations.
• Personal Injury lawyers - assist injured victims of negligence or strict liability. They
ensure that the aggrieved will recover proper damages from the liable party who caused their
pain and suffering and deter the defendants from committing similar acts in the future.

• Family Law attorneys - deals with family-related cases such as marriage legitimacy,
divorce, annulment, property settlements, legal adoption, child abuse and abduction of minors,

While a number of people believe that litigation attorneys practice their profession purely for
profit, a great majority of these law professionals offers their assistance at low costs or
sometimes free of charge. In fact, the overwhelming benefits of employing a lawyer far outweigh
the cost of hiring one.

With that note, those noble legal practitioners should be commended for their great dealings; for
protecting our rights and ensuring that justice prevails at all times. Without their expert services,
law and order will definitely remain just a dream.

Rainier used to work in a publishing company as a writer and eventually became an associate
editor. He dealt in writing instructional materials for secondary and tertiary students. His passion
in writing inspired him to read a lot and subsequently enabled him to gain more knowledge and
skills.

Our Professional Los Angeles County Litigation Lawyer are highly experienced with regards to
litigation processes. For more information about litigation processes on personal injury cases,
please log on to our website.

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Rainier_Policarpio/100787

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/769180

Characteristics Of The Profession

Social role

The legal profession has always had an ambiguous social position. Leading lawyers have
usually been socially prominent and respected—the sections of the profession so favoured
varying with the general structure of the law in the particular community. The family status of
early Roman jurisconsults may have been more important than their legal expertise in securing
such a position, but by the time of the principate it was their legal eminence that made them
respected. The English serjeants lived magnificently, especially in Elizabethan times, and the
French Ordre des Avocats was established (14th century) by feudal aristocrats in circumstances
reminiscent of early Rome—including an insistence on receiving gifts rather than fees. The early
Italian doctors of civil and canon law (12th–15th centuries) were revered throughout Europe. In
England and the countries influenced by its system, the highest prestigegradually came to be
conferred on the judges rather than on the order of serjeants, of which the judges were
members; even now, the judges of high-level courts in liberal-democratic common-law countries
tend to enjoy appreciably greater respect than their brethren at the bar. In the Romano-
Germanic systems it is the notaries and the advocates who have come to be most trusted or
admired, the judiciary being more closely identified with the civil service.

Yet, along with this high repute, sustained over two millennia, lawyers have also engendered
tremendous distrust and even hatred in many societies. In a few cases this has been the
consequence of a general hostility to the whole idea of law. In the Soviet Union, for example,
the early leaders (1917–22) imagined that law and lawyers were the instruments of the ruling
classes and that law would soon wither away in classless communism (see Soviet law). This
belief was revived during the first three decades of communist rule in China, especially during
the Cultural Revolution (1966–76). Further experience persuaded these governments that there
was room for “socialist legality” and for lawyers to serve it. Indeed, since 1977 China has
pursued the most ambitious program in history to develop a legal profession, though the legacy
of the earlier era still makes itself felt in subtle ways.

There is an inherent conservatism to the legal profession, owing to its commitment to working
chiefly through existing institutions and to the fact that law itself is predominantly intended to
satisfy expectations arising from inherited patterns of behaviour. Individual lawyers,
nevertheless, occasionally have been on the side of revolutionaries and rebels; Robespierre
and Leninwere both lawyers, to cite two extreme cases. In addition, there is a long and rich
tradition in many countries of lawyers’ serving as leaders of struggles for social justice, as did
Gandhi, Thurgood Marshall in the United States, and Nelson Mandela in South Africa. The
prevailing attitude of the legal profession, however, is one of moderation. Thus, many lawyers
took the British side in the American Revolution, and, even among the lawyers who took the
other side, the predominant influence was against any attempt to turn the political revolution into
a socioeconomic revolution.

Along with these ideological and political reasons for popular distrust, and even more deep-
seated, are the inherent difficulties associated with law and with some legal functions. Many
people would like law to be so clear that its application is equally certain in all cases and so
simple that any person of sense can readily see how it applies. But in a discipline sharing the
imperfection and complexity of society itself, no such situation is attainable, and lawyers are
consequently blamed for the basic difficulty of their craft—which, it must be said, they
sometimes compound by multiplying obscurities, contradictions, and complexities. The legal
function likely to be most distrusted by the average person—though it also produces some of
the law’s heroes—is litigious advocacy, particularly in the criminal law. Plato and Aristotle
condemned the advocate as one who was paid to make the worse cause appear the better or
who endeavoured by sophisticated tricks of argument to establish as true what any person of
common sense could see was false. The feeling against advocacy in the criminal law was so
strong that, at least in cases involving more serious kinds of crime, a right to representation by a
trained advocate was nowhere generally recognized until the 18th century.

The organized legal profession has in some jurisdictions endeavoured to meet the problem of
litigious advocacy by contending that the dominant duty of the advocate is not to the client but to
the truth and the law. Since the late Roman Empire, advocates in many countries have been
required to take oaths to this effect, and lawyers have often technically been classed as “officers
of court.” The duty of the advocate, so conceived, is to fight for the rights of his client, but only
up to the point where an honourable person could fairly put the case on his own behalf. Others
have agreed that, particularly in a highly adversarial legal system such as that of the United
States, lawyers are obliged to advocate zealously for their clients, even if they disagree with the
client’s position or views, provided that they neither misrepresent the law nor misstate the facts
(see legal ethics).

Private practice

Client-directed lawyers often are called counselors, but in the original sense of that word—
giving advice as to how the law stands—this is rarely an independent function; it is an
inseparable part of other functions. In his client-directed activities the lawyer is concerned with
how the law affects specific circumstances, which can for convenience be divided into two main
types: transactional and litigious.

In the transactional type the lawyer is concerned with the validity or legal efficacy of a
transaction independent of any immediate concern with the outcome of litigation. In most
countries such activities constitute the largest area of lawyerly activity, whether considered with
respect to the number of lawyers involved, the time spent on the task, or the number of clients
affected. If the events constituting the transaction in question happen before the lawyer is
consulted, he can only advise on their legal significance and perhaps suggest methods of
overcoming legal deficiencies in what has been done. If future conduct is involved, he is better
placed to help his client plan a course of action that will achieve the desired outcome in the
most economical fashion that the law permits and in a manner that minimizes the chances of
future litigation.

Transactions may concern words and acts, but characteristically they require the drafting of
documents. In the Romano-Germanic systems these often require notarization. Typical activities
falling in this category today include the following: transferring interests in land; transmitting
property on death; settling property within a family; making an agreement (especially a
commercial agreement of some complexity and duration); incorporating or dissolving a
corporate entity; varying the terms on which a corporate entity is conducted (classes of shares,
managerial rights, distribution of profits, etc.); and adjusting the ownership and control of
property and income to comply with the requirements of taxation laws and minimize their impact
on the property and income in question, to ensure the proper management of the assets and
distribution of the proceeds among beneficiaries (as in estate planning), or both. In the Romano-
Germanic systems many of these functions are discharged by notaries, and in the English and
similar divided systems they are performed by solicitors, though in difficult situations the
opinions of advocates or barristers may be obtained. In the fused professions of North America,
some firms of attorneys, or departments within firms, specialize in business of this type and
avoid, so far as they can, the litigious function.

The litigious function is subdivided into three main stages. First is the preparation of the case:
interviewing the client and investigating the circumstances on the basis of leads provided by the
client, attending to the formal requirements of the procedure in question—which may involve
writs, summonses, and statements of claim or defense—and preparing for trial. Second is the
trial proper, in which the facts and law are established and argued before the judge and a
decision is made. Third is the execution of the judgment—payment of damages, delivery of
property, or performance of obligation in civil cases; payment of fine or imprisonment, etc., in
criminal cases. Similar stages arise on appeal. In the divided professions the sharing of these
functions is intricate and varies between one system and another. The advocate or barrister is
especially responsible for the second stage, but he may advise upon or draft many of the
documents used in other stages. If incidental disputes concerning procedure have to be
litigated, he is likely to conduct the proceedings; and, if the procedure includes a pretrial
conference, he is likely to represent the client. Otherwise, the first and third stages are mainly
the province of the procurator or solicitor.

Public-directed practice

Many law graduates choose to enter public service rather than private practice. Of the public
roles played by members of the legal profession, that of judge is most visible, but the status of
judge and the mode of entry into this branch of the profession vary considerably from country to
country.

The traditional independence, power, creativity, and prestige of the Anglo-American judge
contrast with the status of most Continental judges, which is more akin to that of civil servants,
especially at lower levels of the judiciary. In the countries of Anglo-American influence, at least
until recently, appointment (or, in some U.S. states, election) to a judgeship has been viewed as
the crowning achievement of a long and often distinguished legal career. In the Continental
countries, by contrast, a law graduate who wishes to be a judge merely completes a training
period and passes an examination to get a job deciding cases. The beginning civil-law judge
can expect to start at the lowest level and, like any other civil servant, to rise in the hierarchy
through a series of promotions (though a modest number of positions on the highest courts are
reserved for distinguished practitioners or professors as well as for career civil servants). Lateral
entry into the judiciary at any level is uncommon. It has frequently been observed that, because
of their standardized training, civil-law judges tend to share a common outlook. Moreover,
because of their concerns about advancement, they tend to adopt a civil-service mentality that
may appear, at least from an Anglo-American perspective, to discourage initiativeand
independence. Any tendency toward judicial indi9vidualism is apt to be further inhibited by the
fact that Continental judges, even at the lowest levels, usually sit in panels and typically present
their decisions in unsigned opinions. Except in a few courts, such as the German Federal
Constitutional Court, disagreement among judges is generally not revealed, either in the form of
a dissenting opinion or in a record of the judges’ votes.

Since the late 20th century, however, the contrast between Continental and Anglo-American
judicial roles has diminished. In the United States the prestige of judgeships, except at the
higher levels, has declined somewhat. It is not as unusual as it once was for judges to resign
and return to private practice or for eminent lawyers to decline to be considered for judicial
positions; relatively low judicial salaries and public scrutiny are often mentioned as key reasons.
Meanwhile, in some Continental countries, such as Germany—as well as in other countries with
similar systems, including South Korea and Japan—judges are recruited from among the best
law graduates and sometimes from among experienced practitioners. Because of their special
training, Continental judges are almost uniformly professional and competent.

Governments have always required legal specialists, and the scope for such employment today
is enormous. Most countries have a senior political officer—minister of justice, attorney general,
solicitor general—who by convention needs to be a lawyer, and a department concerned mainly
with the legal problems of the government as client (in the English-derived systems usually the
office of the attorney general). Increasingly, however, the great departments of state need their
own legal subbranch. In some countries, such as Germany, lawyers dominate the higher offices
in the civil service, while in others, such as Japan and France, the various official bureaus are
more likely to be staffed, respectively, by law graduates not admitted to practice or by
nonlawyers who have been trained in a special school of administration. In the formerly socialist
countries of eastern Europe, most lawyers tended to work for government or for collectivized
industrial and farm organizations.

One of the oldest and still most difficult of governmental legal functions is that of prosecutor.
Prosecution is sometimes in part carried on by private persons acting through private lawyers,
but the recent trend has very much been to concentrate the function in government legal
officers. In most Commonwealth countries the crown, or public, prosecutor is a specialized
officer under the general control of the attorney general. England has an independent “director
of public prosecutions” concerned only with the most serious types of crime, but most
prosecutions have been conducted by private barristers briefed by him or by the police. A 1985
law, however, provided for the establishment of a body of official prosecutors similar to the
public prosecutors (procurators fiscal) of the Scottish system. In the United States this function
has come to be mainly local, and prosecutors, whose most common title is district attorney, are
elected for short terms.

In most civil-law systems prosecuting is a career service. In Italy and France the prosecutor is a
member of the judiciary. Both prosecutors and judges receive the same training, and both may
move from one role to the other in the course of their advancement in the civil service. In
Germany, although the prosecutor is not technically a member of the judiciary, he is not strictly
separate from it, and individuals move easily from one position to the other. In China
considerable effort has been made in recent years to distinguish the functions of judge,
prosecutor, and defense counsel, but these roles remain in an early stage of development.

The prosecuting function is particularly delicate because criminal prosecution can be used as an
instrument of oppression and persecution, even where conviction is not obtained, and because
in most systems prosecutors are expected to act with a degree of fairness and restraint not
necessarily expected of the parties to civil litigation. Many Romano-Germanic systems employ
officers who supervise the working of the courts, especially their criminal jurisdiction. This is the
office of the “prosecutor general,” or “officer of justice”; a similar service existed in most of the
socialist countries of eastern Europe.

Another branch of government, the legislature, usually requires legal assistance. Legislation
needs to be expressed in language readily comprehensible by judges and lawyers and to be
framed in harmony with the existing body of law. This requires the service of parliamentary
draftsmen who are expert lawyers. A further specialized branch of advisory activity associated
with legislation has become prominent—the law-reform commission or committee.

Teaching and scholarship

Since Roman times teaching and scholarship in the law have provided prominent roles in the
legal profession. Until the 18th century, teaching of the English common law was vested
exclusively in the Inns of Court, and a good deal of continental European teaching for
professional practice—particularly in the case of notaries and procurators—was also
professionally organized. Even university law teaching in Europe often involved interchange
between practitioner and teacher, exemplified in such great figures as the French 18th-century
teacher, advocate, and judge Robert Joseph Pothier, whose commentaries provided the
foundation for the Napoleonic Code of civil law. Much law teaching in the new university law
schools that sprang up in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth in the
19th and 20th centuries was initially carried on part-time by attorneys, barristers, and judges,
and some still is. Sir William Blackstone, the first holder of a chair of English law—the Vinerian
professorship at Oxford—came from the bar and became a judge. Only in the 20th century did
law teaching become a distinct, full-time profession, and then to a greater extent in the United
States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada than in many civil-law countries.

Teachers and practitioners in all countries contribute to a vast professional literature, comprising
textbooks, practical manuals, theoretical monographs, and a periodical literature whose bulk is
becoming almost as big a problem as the enormous number of reported judicial decisions that
are consulted for guidance and precedent. Fortunately, the development of sophisticated
computerized legal-information services and the Internet have greatly facilitated access to this
literature, though they arguably contribute to what has been described as an excess of data.
Civil-law judges have traditionally paid close attention to the views of legal scholars as
expressed in general and specialized treatises, commentaries on the codes, monographs, law
review articles and case notes, and expert opinions rendered in connection with litigation,
though some commentators have suggested that the role of jurists is diminishing as law practice
and the academy change, especially on the European continent. Persistent scholarly criticism
often prompts reexamination of a legal doctrine and sometimes even leads to the abandonment
of an established judicial position. In the Anglo-American systems, legal writing has certainly
become influential, as indicated by the increase in citations to secondary sources in
contemporary judicial opinions. Nonetheless, the degree of deference to academic opinion is in
general appreciably less than in the Continental countries.

At least since classical Greece, a recurring political theme has been the need for a government
of laws rather than of men. Actually, however, as the 20th-century English legal philosopher
Julius Stone observed, society of necessity has a government both of laws and of men, and the
demand for legal autonomy is often seen in practice as a demand for freedom of the lawyers
from undue political influence. The demand for autonomy has been expressed mainly in terms
of the independence of the judiciary; democracies in particular have been assiduous in
cultivating both a spirit and traditions that respect judicial independence. The details of their
governmental structure or constitutional guarantees tend in that direction, offering obstacles to
the ready dismissal of judges, charging their salaries on consolidated revenue, and prohibiting
the vesting of judicial functions other than in duly constitutedcourts of law.

The special position of the judiciary in constitutional states is usually considered to be an aspect
of the separation of powers, but it also should be considered in its relation to the structure of the
legal profession. Since the late Roman Empire, admission to the practice of law and the
regulation of the practicing profession have been habitually vested in the judiciary. Furthermore,
the duty to speak fearlessly for his client has often required courage of the advocate in the face
of political threats, and, when these threats were directed also against the court before which
the advocate appeared, judicial courage also was required. The legal profession as a whole is
then seen as defending “the rule of law” against the political regime.

The issue of judicial independence may sometimes, however, be seen in the context of the
tension between judges and advocates. In the civil-law systems judges often are subject to a
strong corporate discipline within their own craft, and differences can occur between them and
the body of advocates and also between them and the university teacher-commentators. These
differences may relate to questions of legal ethics, especially the limits of advocate identification
with client, or to questions of legal doctrine; the judges are then apt to be considered as
representing “the state,” and the advocates and teachers the autonomy of the law. In the
English-derived systems judges are much less subject to corporate discipline, and disputes with
the bar are more likely to arise with individual judges and to be highly personal. Even in stable
countries, where the rule of law and the independence of judiciary and profession are
respected, there is a less-dramatic tension between the standards and tone of the lawyers on
the one hand and the political administration on the other. For the lawyers, policy is largely
concealed in the propositions that constitute the normative system, and legal reasoning usually
involves definitions and processes of inference from the body of such propositions themselves
rather than directly from the policies that the norms subserve. There have often been revolts
against such “logic” within the legal profession itself, especially in the 20th century, but it still
remains the most common method of thinking among lawyers, and it is doubtful whether one
can speak of a “rule of law” at all unless a good deal of legal reasoning is conceptual in style.
Politicians and administrators, on the other hand, are more likely to reason directly from policies
and purposes and from the considerations relevant to their attainment. This divergence of
approach is often illustrated by referring to the tension between the police officer, confident that
he has the guilty man and intent only on putting him in jail, and the lawyers and judge, who
insist on the need for “conviction according to law,” which may involve applying rules of
evidence that seem artificial and even absurd to the police officer. In rigid constitutional
systems, where there is judicial review of legislation, politicians may be affronted at the way in
which political issues are transformed by the lawyers into legal issues. In many modern
countries there has been a tendency to remove certain kinds of disputes both from the courts
and from the lawyers and to vest their determination in administrative bodies before which
lawyers are denied standing, so as to escape what has been regarded as the blight of legal
reasoning; as often there have been reactions in favour of restoring the “rule of law” and the
lawyers. In such disputes it is often difficult to distinguish between lawyerly attitudes that reflect
the necessary features of a rule of law from those that merely reflect the temporary self-interest
of particular lawyers or their clients.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/legal-profession/Autonomy-and-control

LEGAL PROFESSION IN THE PHILIPPINES

IF I WERE the Teacher, these would be my Final Exam Questions and Answers.

Answers to QUESTIONS:

1. What is Law?

Law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions
to govern behavior.[3] Laws are made bygovernments, specifically by their
legislatures. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution
(written or unwritten) and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics,
economicsand society in countless ways and serves as a social mediator of relations
between people.

History of Law.

LAW was created to REGULATE and curb activities ANTAGONISTIC to the interests of
the ruling class. It was created to preserve the STATUS QUO. (quo: used with nouns, and with
first- and third-person pronouns,and always placed before the subject; quo is NEVER used for a
second-person pronoun). The state became a political organization of the ruling class by which
it could legitimately impose its will over the rest of the society and ultimately preserve status
quo.

Eventually, LAWs evolved in creating and maintaining order. Law exists for the RELATIONS OF
PRODUCTION and ECONOMIC REQUIREMENT, for without LAWs, these will NOT
DEVELOP.

The purpose of LAW is to protect, strengthen and develop social relations PROFITABLE and
EXPEDIENT for the ruling class and to oust and curb relations CONTRADICTING the will of the
ruling class.

SOCIAL JUSTICE is an irregularity in LAW, it was created to show their was a CONCESSION
to maintain a façade of FAIRNESS to keep optimism ALIVE. The intention of concession is to
DEMONSTRATE that the elite class does rule in the “UNIVERSAL INTEREST”.

These concessions are not only grants by the elite, but more are FRUITS of STRUGGLES of
the working CLASS.

The LAWS made by these concessions are now the foundation for SOCIAL JUSTICE that
maintains peace and harmony between the elite and the working class.
2. Why do you want to be a Lawyer? I want to be a lawyer because I want to ADMINISTER
JUSTICE. I want to be an instrument to serve the ends of JUSTICE. I will work and operate
within the Legal System.

3. What is the requirement to be a Lawyer? To practice law in the Philippines, one must have
fulfilled the non-academic and academic requirements. For non-academic requirements, one
must be a Filipino, be at least 21 years old, be a resident of the Philippines, and have the moral
and other non-academic qualifications needed. In terms of academic requirements, one must
have obtained a 4year course undergraduate degree (with major, focus or concentration in any
of the subjects of History, Economics, Political Science, Logic, English), has obtained a
Bachelor of Laws degree (or equivalent such as Juris Doctor) from a law school recognized by
the Secretary of Education. They must have also taken and passed (75% general average, with
no subject falling below 50%) the Bar Exam, taken the Attorney's Oath before the Supreme
Court, signed the Roll of Attorneys, remain in good standing with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, and continually participates in the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education.

4. What is needed to study law? These are the 3 L’s.

Language is the TOOL of the LAW. The 3 L’s are Language, Logic and the Law itself. Language
is being able to express your views correctly. Logic is being able to use the right laws in the right
case. Law however has to be learned in Law School in a SCIENTIFIC and Systematic Way.

5. What are the advocacies of a Lawyer? A lawyer must work hard to ensure that SOCIAL
JUSTICE is achieved. He should not be DAUNTED by the limitations of working within the Legal
system. He must strive until the law the law is truly contained with social justice.

6. What are Apostasies of a Lawyer?

Apostasy ( (apostasia), 'a defection or revolt', from 'away, apart', stasis, 'stand, 'standing') is
the formal disaffiliation from or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person. One who
commits apostasy (or who apostatises) is known as an apostate. The term apostasy is used by
sociologists to mean renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, a person's former religion, in
a technical sense and without pejorative connotation.

The term is sometimes also used metaphorically to refer to renunciation of a non-religious belief
or cause, such as a political party, brain trust, or, facetiously, a sports team.

APOSTATE is One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles,
or a cause.

APOSTASY in the LEGAL PROFESSION.

a. DEnouncingmembers of the supreme court

b. Acts libelous to the courts

c. Appearing in a court 2years after execution of the FINAL JUDGMENT.

d. Lawyer filing Unintelligible and undecipherable petition.

e. Submitting Maliciously FALSified Documents while facing charges of Moral turpitude/

f. Making false assertion that his life is threatened by the opposing Litigant as GROUND for
Transfer of VENUE for hearing the case.

g. Lawyer who advises his client to escape prison because habeas corpus was denied.

h. Negligence in observing the reglementary period for the Right to APPEAL to the
SUPREME COURT(note it is when the appeal is to made in the supreme court, not just any
other higher courts). Knowing he has failed to file during the reglementary period , he WILL FILE
a special civil action for [1]review to circumvent the RULE in the hope that the court would fail to
find out he made a DUPLICITY of ACTION.

i. Lawyers who goes to court and ARGUE completely UNPREPARED.

j. Lawyers who lack candor and are intellectually dishonest when arguing before the court.

k. Lawyers who intentionally omit unfavorable or adverse facts in petitions to mislead the
court.

l. Lawyers that Desperately intend to win cases BASED on Technicalities ONLY.

m. Lawyers who foist (foist:to pass on as worthy, correct but is in fact the opposite) BIZARRE
THEORIES upon the COURT.

7. What is a Lawyer’s duty to his Colleagues, Community and the Court?

To his community: He must be first to comply with the constitution and maintain allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines. He must respect all laws made by congress and legal processes
of the Judiciary. He must avoid litigation for society’s sake.

Lawyers must be prepared to state their position publicly on matters involving MORAL or
ETHICAL ISSUES. Lawyers can lead by examples as MORALLY UPRIGHT professionals. They
should take the lead in opposing morally wrong or UNJUST Legislations or abusive acts of
Public Officials. Person s must be respected as an END and never a MEAN or Tool or
instrument.

TO HIS COLLEAGUES: he must be courteous, fair, and CANDOR (CANDOR:freedom from

prejudice or malice ; FAIRNESS; unreserved, honest, or sincere expression). He must treat his
fellow lawyer on the opposing counsel with dignity and civility and use only language in his
pleadings or arguments as befitting an ADVOCATE. He should avoid all personalities or
personal peculiarities(peculiarity:A notable or distinctive feature or characteristic; An
eccentricity; an idiosyncrasy) and idiosyncracies(idiosyncracy:the composite physical or
psychological make-up of a specific person) of the adverse counsel.

A Lawyer should not encroach upon the employment of a fellow lawyer.

A Lawyer must be a MEMBER of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Lawyer’s duty to his client. He must be devoted. He must not take any UNDUE advantage on
his client. He must account all money used. He must preserve clients confidential information.
He MUST advice his clients to avoid unnecessary LITIGATION.

8. What is the revolutionary Imperative of Lawyers in the Philippines?

No great improvement in the LOT(luck, lot from LOTtery) of mankind are possible, until a great
change takes place in the fundamental constitution of their modes of thoughts.

QUO VADIS lawyer.( Quo vadis? is a Latin phrase meaning "Where are you going?)

Lawyers have do not have a good perception in the public’s eye. Lawyers are perceived to be
lower than doctors, engineers, lawyers were ranked in the level of politicians and serial killers.
Legal writers being lawyers describe the legal profession as a medium of convenience and
enrichment, a creature of the market, a commodity. A defender of ESTABLISHED interests. A
venal (venal: : capable of being bought or obtained for money or other valuable consideration :
PURCHASABLE; especially : open to corrupt influence and especially bribery : MERCENARY
<a venallegislator>)hodgepodge(HODGEPODGE: a heterogeneous mixture : jumble <a
hodgepodge of styles> ) [2]of trouble makers milking on the public of hard earned wealth by
preying on their troubles.

ON THE OTHER HAND, noble ideal LAWYERS are willing to risk their lives when necessary to
assure that JUSTICE is Done.

Lawyers thrive in TROUBLE and in CHAOS. Lawyers will in die in a society of social harmony. It
is likely that he himself will create TROUBLE and CHAOS. A lawyer may be thought of as a
troublemaker and then the TROUBLE-SHOOTER.

9. What is the Code of Responsibility for Lawyers? Lawyers shall not have any CORRUPT
motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding.[3]

Code of Responsibility for Lawyers

(LITIGATION: To engage in legal proceedings)

a. Volunteering advise to bring a lawsuit

b. Hunting up defects in titles or other causes of action in order to be employed for

LITIGATION.

c. Employing agents to Hunt for causes of action to be employed as a Lawyer for Litigation.
d. Paying reward to those that refer cases to him for litigation.

e. Paying Policemen, court or prison officials, Physicians, Hospital attaches in influencing the
criminal, the sick and the injured, the ignorant to EMPLOY HIM for Litigation.

f. Searching for unknown heirs for HIM to be employed for Litigation.

g. Initiating trouble in a club for them to contest CLUB by-laws and get him employed for their
litigation.

h. Purchasing notes(notes that could not be collected by lenders) to collect them by litigation
at a profit.

i. Initiating and Furnishing credit reports to Lenders that he could collect for them so he may
be employed for Litigation.

j. Agreeing with a purchaser of future interests to invest therein in CONSIDERATION of HIS

SERVICES.

10. GROUNDS for Disbarment

a. Deceit, Malpractice, Gross misconduct in office

b. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude

c. Grossly immoral conduct

d. Violation of the Lawyer’s oath

e. WILLFUL disobedience to LAWFUL ORDERs OF THE COURT

f. Corruptly appearing for a party without authority to do so

g. SOLICITATION of cases at law for the purpose of gain.

1 What is a Lawyer’s duty to an indigent? A Lawyer must make his services

available to POOR and financially disadvantaged people in the PROCESS of their claims or
defense of their rights EVEN if they are GUILTY.

1
Write the Lawyer’s OATH.

Lawyer's Oath

I, do solemnly swear that

1. I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,

2. I will support the Constitution and Obey the Laws as well as the Legal Orders of the Duly
constituted Authorities therein;

3. I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;

4. I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give
aid nor consent to the same;

5. I will delay no man for money or malice,

6. 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 these
voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

UN Rapporteur: Judicial independence in PH under attack

Philippine experts believe the statements are a nudge to the ICC prosecutor to claim jurisdiction
to investigate the war on drugs

MANILA, Philippines – The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges
and lawyers said on Friday, June 1, that the judicial independence of the Philippines is under
attack.

Special Rapporteur Diego García-Sayán made an academic visit to the Philippines this week
and assessed that there was a "worrisome deterioration of the rule of law and that the
independence of justice in the Philippines is under attack."

García-Sayán's basis for his unofficial findings was the quo warranto ouster of former chief
justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, handed down to her by no other than the Supreme Court.

“The decision of the Supreme Court was issued two days after the President of the Philippines
publicly threatened the Chief Justice by saying that she was his enemy and that she should be
removed from her job or resign,” said García-Sayán.

García-Sayán added that the ouster of Sereno "sends a chilling effect" to other justices and
lower court judges.

“Not only do they constitute direct intimidation of the Chief Justice; they also appear to have had
have a ‘chilling effect’ on other Supreme Court justices, who may have been deterred from
asserting their judicial independence and exercising their freedom of expression," García-Sayán
said.
García-Sayán also related it to the government's war on drugs. Sereno first earned the ire of the
president in 2016 when she tried to intervene on behalf of judges whom Duterte named as
linked to drugs. Sereno would deliver another speech in early 2017 saying extrajudicial killings
are a setback in judicial reforms.

Sereno later became the subject of irate speeches of Duterte.

“The use of such derogatory language against the highest-ranking magistrate in the country
sends a clear message to all judges of the Philippines: in the so called ‘war on drugs’, you’re
either with me or against me."

ICC examination

This assessment comes as the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor tries to establish
jurisdiction to investigate high killings in the war on drugs. Jurisdiction will be established if the
prosecutor determines that Philippine courts are unable or unwilling to investigate it themselves.

García-Sayán refused to comment on what could potentially be the effect of his statement in the
prosecutor's ongoing examinations.