Higit Pa Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

CASE DIGEST COMPENDIUM

S A T U R D AY, J A N U A R Y 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 BLOG ARCHIVE

2006 Legal Ethics Case Digest ▼ 2007 (9)

MARIA ELENA MORENO VS. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETA ▼ January (9)

A.C. No. 1109. April 27, 2005 2006 Bar Operations
Commission Team Research
Facts: Ernesto Araneta issued two checks to Elena Moreno for his 2006 Taxation Case Digests
indebtedness which amounts to P11, 000.00, the checks were
2006 Remedial Law Case
dishonored. It was dishonored because the account against which is Digests
drawn is closed. Thereafter the case was forwarded to the IBP
2006 Criminal Law Case Digests
Commission on Bar Discipline pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of
Court. The Commission recommended the suspension from the 2006 Labor Law Case Digests
practice of law for three (3) months. On 15 October 2002, IBP Director 2006 Legal Ethics Case Digest
for Bar Discipline Victor C. Fernandez, transmitted the records of this
2006 Political Law Case Digests
case back to this Court pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 12(b) of the Rules
2006 Mercantile Law Case
of Court. Thereafter, the Office of the Bar Confidant filed a Report
Digests
regarding various aspects of the case. The Report further made
mention of a Resolution from this Court indefinitely suspending the 2006 Civil Law Case Digests
respondent for having been convicted by final judgment of estafa
through falsification of a commercial document.

ABOUT ME
Issue: Whether or not Araneta should be disbarred due to the issuance
U N C B A R O P E R AT I O N S C O M M I S S I O N
of checks drawn against a closed account.
2007

Held: The Court held that the act of a person in issuing a check VIEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE

knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have
sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of
the check in full upon its presentment, is a manifestation of moral
turpitude. In Co v. Bernardino and Lao v. Medel, we held that for
issuing worthless checks, a lawyer may be sanctioned with one year’s
suspension from the practice of law, or a suspension of six months
upon partial payment of the obligation. In the instant case, however,
herein respondent has, apparently been found guilty by final judgment
of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document, a crime involving
moral turpitude, for which he has been indefinitely suspended.

http://researchcasedigest.blogspot.com/2007/01/2006-legal-ethics-case-digest.html 13/03/2020, 9:57 PM

Page 1 of 12
 moral turpitude, for which he has been indefinitely suspended.
Considering that he had previously committed a similarly fraudulent
act, and that this case likewise involves moral turpitude, we are
constrained to impose a more severe penalty. In fact, we have long held
that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final
judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude. As we said in In The
Matter of Disbarment Proceedings v. Narciso N. Jaramillo, “the review
of respondent's conviction no longer rests upon us. The judgment not
only has become final but has been executed. No elaborate argument is
necessary to hold the respondent unworthy of the privilege bestowed
on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his conviction,
the respondent has proved himself unfit to protect the administration
of justice.”

Spouses OLBES VS. Atty. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE

AC-5365. April 27, 2005

Facts: Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was given five blank checks by

Spouses Olbes for security of a loan. After the loan was paid and a
receipt issued, Atty. Deciembre filled up four of the five checks for P50,
000 with different maturity date. All checks were dishonored. Thus,
Atty. Deciembre fled a case for estafa against the spouses Olbes. This
prompted the spouses Olbes to file a disbarment case against Atty.
Deciembre with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court. In the
report, Commissioner Dulay recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for two years for violating Rule 1.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Issue: Whether or not the suspension of Atty. Deciembre was in accord

with his fault.

Held: Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege

burdened with conditions. It is bestowed upon individuals who are not
only learned in the law, but also known to possess good moral
character. “A lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose conduct
is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and
whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and
justice, for which he has sworn to be a fearless crusader.” By taking the
lawyer’s oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of
law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial
administration of justice. Lawyers should act and comport themselves

with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to

http://researchcasedigest.blogspot.com/2007/01/2006-legal-ethics-case-digest.html 13/03/2020, 9:57 PM

Page 2 of 12
 with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to
promote the public’s faith in the legal profession. It is also glaringly
clear that the Code of Professional Responsibility was seriously
transgressed by his malevolent act of filling up the blank checks by
indicating amounts that had not been agreed upon at all and despite
respondent’s full knowledge that the loan supposed to be secured by
the checks had already been paid. His was a brazen act of falsification
of a commercial document, resorted to for his material gain.
Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable
practices that are disgraceful and dishonorable; they reveal a basic
moral flaw. The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by
conduct that merely enables one to escape the penalties of criminal
laws. Considering the depravity of the offense committed by
respondent, we find the penalty recommended by the IBP of
suspension for two years from the practice of law to be too mild. His
propensity for employing deceit and misrepresentation is
reprehensible. His misuse of the filled-up checks that led to the
detention of one petitioner is loathsome. Thus, he is sentenced
suspended indefinitely from the practice of law effective immediately.

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., and BEN A. NICOLAS vs.

Atty. MACARIO D. ARQUILLO
A.C. No. 6632. August 2, 2005

Facts: Atty. Macatrio D. Arquillo represented opposing parties in one a

case before the before the National Labor Relations Commission,
Regional Arbitration Branch in San Fernando, La Union. Herein,
complainants accuse Atty. Arquillo of deceit, malpractice, gross
misconduct and/or violation of his oath as attorney by representing
conflicting interests. The case was filed with the IBP-Commission on
Bar Discipline which found Atty. Arquillo guilty of the charge and
recommended a penalty of suspension for 6 months. The governors of
the IBP increased the penalty for 2 years.

Issue: Whether or not the acts of Arquillo merits his suspension from
the practice of law.

Held: The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to

observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and
transactions with their clients. Corollary to this duty, lawyers shall not
represent conflicting interests, except with all the concerned clients’

written consent, given after a full disclosure of the facts. When a lawyer

http://researchcasedigest.blogspot.com/2007/01/2006-legal-ethics-case-digest.html 13/03/2020, 9:57 PM

Page 3 of 12
 represents two or more opposing parties, there is a conflict of interests,
the existence of which is determined by three separate tests: (1) when,
in representation of one client, a lawyer is required to fight for an issue
or claim, but is also duty-bound to oppose it for another client; (2)
when the acceptance of the new retainer will require an attorney to
perform an act that may injuriously affect the first client or, when
called upon in a new relation, to use against the first one any
knowledge acquired through their professional connection; or (3) when
the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of an
attorney’s duty to give undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or
would invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the
performance of that duty. An attorney cannot represent adverse
interests. It is a hornbook doctrine grounded on public policy that a
lawyer’s representation of both sides of an issue is highly improper.
The proscription applies when the conflicting interests arise with
respect to the same general matter, however slight such conflict may
be. It applies even when the attorney acts from honest intentions or in
good faith.
In accordance with previous rulings from this court Atty. Arquillo is
suspended for 1 year from the practice of law.

RE: LETTER DATED 21 FEBRUARY 2005 OF ATTY. NOEL S.

SORREDA.
A.M. No. 05-3-04-SC July 22, 2005

Facts: Atty. Noel S. Sorreda wrote a letter addressed to the Chief

Justice over his frustrations of the outcome of his cases decided by the
Supreme Court. The letter contained derogatory and malignant
remarks which are highly insulting. The Court accorded Atty. Sorreda
to explain, however, instead of appearing before the court, he wrote
another letter with insulting remarks as the first one. The court was
thus offended with his remarks.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Sorreda can be held guilty of contempt due
to the remarks he has made in his letters addressed to the court.

Held: Unfounded accusations or allegations or words tending to

embarrass the court or to bring it into disrepute have no place in a
pleading. Their employment serves no useful purpose. On the contrary,
they constitute direct contempt of court or contempt in facie curiae and

a violation of the lawyer’s oath and a transgression of the Code of

Professional Responsibility. As officer of the court, Atty. Sorreda has

http://researchcasedigest.blogspot.com/2007/01/2006-legal-ethics-case-digest.html 13/03/2020, 9:57 PM

Page 4 of 12
 Professional Responsibility. As officer of the court, Atty. Sorreda has
the duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and to
promote confidence in the fair administration of justice.[24] No less
must this be and with greater reasons in the case of the country’s
highest court, the Supreme Court, as the last bulwark of justice and
democracy
Atty. Sorreda must be reminded that his first duty is not to his client
but to the administration of justice, to which his client’s success is
wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be
scrupulously observant of law and ethics. The use of intemperate
language and unkind ascription can hardly be justified nor can it have a
place in the dignity of judicial forum. Civility among members of the
legal profession is a treasured tradition that must at no time be lost to
it. Hence, Atty. Sorreda has transcended the permissible bounds of fair
comment and constructive criticism to the detriment of the orderly
administration of justice. Free expression, after all, must not be used as
a vehicle to satisfy one’s irrational obsession to demean, ridicule,
degrade and even destroy this Court and its magistrates. Thus, ATTY.
NOEL S. SORREDA is found guilty both of contempt of court and
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility amounting to gross
misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the Bar.

Heirs of Herman Rey, represented by ARACELI Vda. DE ROMERO vs.

Atty. Venancio Reyes, Jr.
A.C. No. 6192 June 23, 2005

Facts: Atty. Venancio Reyes is counsel for Heirs of Herman Rey for
which they are intervenors in a civil case involving multiple sale of a
piece of land. There were three buyers however, and to settle the case,
they had agreed to a Compromise Agreement. The Compromise
Agreement, dated June 16, 1995, was signed in three stages, first by
Elizabeth Reyes and her husband, then by complainants and their
counsel, Atty. Renato Samonte Jr., and last, by Antonio Gonzales,
Veronica Gonzales for and on behalf of V.R. Credit Enterprises, Inc.
and by herein respondent. Later, the RTC which houses the records of
the case was destroyed by fire, thus The complainants filed a motion
for reconstitution of the records of the case, which was granted by the
RTC of Bulacan. The documents attached to the motion were the basis
for the reconstituted records. Because of the circumstances of signing
of the Compromise Agreement, the copy submitted to the RTC bore

only the signatures of Elizabeth Reyes, her husband, complainants, and

that of their counsel, Atty. Renato Samonte. After a lapse of two (2)

http://researchcasedigest.blogspot.com/2007/01/2006-legal-ethics-case-digest.html 13/03/2020, 9:57 PM

Page 5 of 12
 that of their counsel, Atty. Renato Samonte. After a lapse of two (2)
years from the date of the Compromise Agreement, V.R. Credit
Enterprises, Inc. still has not complied with its obligation toward
complainants. Hence, complainants filed a motion for issuance of writ
of execution against V.R. Credit Enterprises, Inc. for such failure. Atty.
Reyes filed a motion for the case was premature. Later he raised the
issue that the Compromise Agreement was not valid since it was not
signed by Veronica Gonzales. Hence, the RTC rued that the
Compromise as unenforceable. Thus, herein, complainants filed this
administrative case against Atty. Venancio Reyes Jr. charging him with
willful and intentional falsehood, in violation of his oath as a member
of the Philippine bar. IBP investigating commissioner found him guilty
of violation of his oath.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Venancio Reyes is administratively liable.

Held: Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace.

Upon taking their professional oath, they become guardians of truth
and the rule of law. Verily, when they appear before a tribunal, they act
not merely as the parties’ representatives but, first and foremost, as
officers of the court. Thus, their duty to protect their clients’ interests is
secondary to their obligation to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. In assailing the legality of the Compromise
Agreement, he claims good faith. He maintains that he should not be
faulted for raising an allegedly valid defense to protect his client’s
interests. The records show, however, that his actions bear hallmarks of
dishonesty and doublespeak. Atty. Reyes is one of negotiating panel in
the compromise agreement. He impressed upon the parties and the
trial judge that his clients were bound to the Compromise Agreement.
Then, suddenly and conveniently, he repudiated it by falsely alleging
that one of his clients had never signed it. True, lawyers are obliged to
present every available remedy or defense to support the cause of their
clients. However, their fidelity to their causes must always be made
within the parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth
and justice. In Choa v. Chiongson this principle was explained thus:
“While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client, full
devotion to his genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and
defense of his rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability, he must do so only within the bounds of the law” Thus, herein,
Atty. Venancio Reyes, was ordered suspended for 1 year.

JESUS M. FERRER vs. ATTY. JOSE ALLAN M. TEBELIN

http://researchcasedigest.blogspot.com/2007/01/2006-legal-ethics-case-digest.html 13/03/2020, 9:57 PM

Page 6 of 12
 A.C. No. 6590. June 27, 2005

Facts: Ferrer obtained the services of Atty. Tebelin in a case against

Global Link as a result of a vehicular accident through the falut of
Global Link’s driver. Ferrer paid Atty. Tebelin P5, 000.00 as
acceptance fee and gave him all pertinent documents. However, Ferrer
filed an administrative case against Atty. Tebelin alleging that the said
lawyer abandoned his case. However, Atty. Tebelin expressed his
willingness to return the money and denied having abandoned the
case. However, during the proceedings, herein Ferrer died. Atty.
Tebelin was nowhere to be found in his given address.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Tebellin may still be held liable despite the
death of the complainant.

Held: The court held that Atty. Tebelin may still be held liable despite
the death of the complainant. The death of a complainant in an
administrative case notwithstanding, the case may still proceed and be
resolved. As in the case of Tudtud v. Colifores, the court ruled that “The
death of the complainant herein does not warrant the non-pursuance
of the charges against respondent Judge. In administrative cases
against public officers and employees, the complainants are, in a real
sense, only witnesses. Hence, the unilateral decision of a complainant
to withdraw from an administrative complaint, or even his death, as in
the case at bar, does not prevent the Court from imposing sanctions
upon the parties subject to its administrative supervision.” This Court
also finds respondent, for ignoring the notices of hearing sent to him at
his address which he himself furnished, or to notify the IBP-CBD his
new address if indeed he had moved out of his given address. His
actuation betrays his lack of courtesy, his irresponsibility as a lawyer.
This Court faults respondent too for welting on his manifestation-
undertaking to return the P5,000.00, not to mention the documents
bearing on the case, to complainant or his heirs. Such is reflective of his
reckless disregard of the duty imposed on him by Rule 22.02 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 22.02 – A lawyer who
withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retaining lien,
immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is
entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer
of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper

handling of the matter.

Thus, the court suspended Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin from the
practice of law for Two (2) Months and is ordered to return to

http://researchcasedigest.blogspot.com/2007/01/2006-legal-ethics-case-digest.html 13/03/2020, 9:57 PM

Page 7 of 12
 practice of law for Two (2) Months and is ordered to return to
complainant’s heirs the amount of P5, 000.00, with legal interest.

JUDGES; UNDUE DELAY IN RENDERING JUDGMENT , A

VIOLATION OF RULE 70 SECTION 11 OF THE RULES OF COURT
DORCAS PETALLAR VS. JUDGE JAUNILLO PULLOS
A.M. No. MTJ-03-1484. January 15, 2004

Facts: Complainant Dorcas Petallar averred that after the preliminary

conference in a case for forcible entry, he, as plaintiff and the
defendants were ordered to submit their respective position papers and
evidence. Two months from the submission of their position papers,
complainant personally went to the Court to verify the judgment had
been rendered. He caused his lawyer to file a motion for rendition of
judgment which was duly received by the court on August 6, 2001 but
still no judgment was rendered on December 27, 2001 when the
complaint was filed. Hence, complainant Petallar charged Judge
Juanillo Pullos, former presiding judge of the MCTC of Surigao del
Norte of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.02 & Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct as well as Rule 140, Section 4 & Rule 70, Section 10
& 11 of the Rules of the Court for undue delay in rendering a decision in
a case for forcibly entry.

Issue: Whether or not respondent be held liable for undue delay in

rendering judgment.

Held: Respondent is guilty of undue delay in rendering judgment. The

records show that the parties had filed their respective position papers
as early as February 2, 2000. thus, respondent had until March 4,
2000. Had there been circumstances which presented him from
handling down his decision within the prescribed period, respondent
should have at least requested from the Court for an extension within
which to render judgment. Failure to resolve cases submitted for
decisions within the period fixed by law constitutes serious violation of
Article III, section 16 of the Constitution. Judges must perform their
official duties with utmost diligence if public confidence in the judiciary
is to be preserved. A judge cannot by himself prolong the period for
deciding cases beyond that authorized by law. Without any order of
extension granted by the court, failure to decide a case within the

prescribed period constitutes gross inefficiency that merits

administrative sanction.

http://researchcasedigest.blogspot.com/2007/01/2006-legal-ethics-case-digest.html 13/03/2020, 9:57 PM

Page 8 of 12
 COMPLAINTS FOR DISBARMENT; FORMAL INVESTIGATION
MERCEDES NAVA VS. ATTY. BENJAMIN SORONGON
AC No. 5442. January 26, 2004

Facts: Respondent Atty. Sorongon had been the counsel of complainant

Mercedes Nava for years. The former informed her of his intention to
withdraw as her counsel in two of her cases due to a stroke that
paralyzed his right body but proposed to be retained in two other
criminal cases with lesser paper works. He filed his withdrawal on
December 4, 1996 and was granted by the court. Complainant alleged
that while she continuously paid for the respondent’s services, the
latter represented other clients with hostile interests and cases filed
against her. Complainant cried that respondent assisted one Francisco
Atas in filing a formal complaint for 11 counts of violation of B.P. 22
against her. She sent a letter to respondents expressing her disbelief
and reminding him of his ethical and moral responsibility as a lawyer.
Complainant prayed that an investigation be conducted regarding this
unfortunate actuation and deplorable behavior as well as respondent’s
double standard attitude.
Thereafter, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued a resolution
suspending respondent from the practice of law for one year
considering his clear violation of the prohibition against representing
conflicting interest.

Issue: Whether or not a formal investigation is mandatory in

complaints for disbarment.

Held: In complaints for disbarment, a formal investigation is a

mandatory requirement. The court may dispense with the normal
referral to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines if the records are
complete and the question raised is simple. Similarly, if no further,
factual determination is necessary, the court may decide the case on
the basis of the extensive pleading on record.
Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed to
the Court. If, at the outset, the Court finds a complaint to be clearly
wanting in merit, it out rightly dismisses the case. If, however, the
Court deems it necessary that further inquiry should be made, such as
when the matter could not be resolved by merely evaluating the

pleadings submitted, a referral is made to the IBP for a formal

investigation of the case during which the parties are accorded an
opportunity to be heard. An ex parte investigation may only be
conducted when respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice.

http://researchcasedigest.blogspot.com/2007/01/2006-legal-ethics-case-digest.html 13/03/2020, 9:57 PM

Page 9 of 12
 conducted when respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice.

ABANDONMENT OF LAWFUL WIFE AND MAINTAINING ILLICIT

RELATIONSHIP AS GROUND FOR DISBARMENT
JOVITA BUSTAMANTE-ALEJANDRO VS. ATTY. WARFREDO
TOMAS ALEJANDRO and MARICRIS VILLARIN
AC No. 4256. February 13, 2004

Facts: Complainant submitted a photocopy of the marriage contract

between her and respondent Atty. Alejandro in support of her charge of
bigamy and concubinage against the latter and Villarin. She also
submitted a photocopy of the birth certificate of a child of the
respondent and also stated that they were married in May 1, 1990 in
Isabela, Province.
The Supreme Court directed respondents to file their comment on the
complaint within 10 days but they failed to comply. Copies of the
resolution, complaint and its annexes were returned to both
respondents unserved with notation “moved”, same as when served
personally. Complainant was required anew to submit the correct,
present address of respondents under pain of dismissal of her
administrative complaint. She disclosed respondent’s address at 12403
Develop Drive Houston, Texas in a handwritten letter.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that both
respondents be disbarred. The Supreme Court ordered Atty. Alejandro
to be disbarred while the complaint against his co-respondent Atty.
Villarin was returned to the IBP for further proceedings or it appears
that a copy of the resolution requiring comment was never “deemed
served” upon her as it was upon Atty. Alejandro.

Issue: Whether or not abandonment of lawful wife and maintaining an

illicit relationship with another woman are grounds for disbarment.

Held: Sufficient evidence showed that respondent Atty. Alejandro,

lawfully married to complainant, carried on an illicit relationship with
co-respondent Atty. Villarin. Although the evidence was not sufficient
to prove that he co0ntracted a subsequent bigamous marriage, that fact
remains of his deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of
him as member of the bar. A disbarment proceeding is warranted

against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and maintains an illicit
relationship with another woman who had borne him a child. We can
do no less in this case where Atty. Alejandro even fled to another
country to escape the consequences of his misconduct.

http://researchcasedigest.blogspot.com/2007/01/2006-legal-ethics-case-digest.html 13/03/2020, 9:57 PM

Page 10 of 12
 country to escape the consequences of his misconduct.
Therefore, Atty. Alejandro disbarred from the practice of law while the
complaint against Atty. Villarin was referred back to the IBP.

VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY;

FAILURE OF COUNSEL TO FILE BRIEF
BIOMIE SARENAS-OCHAGABIA VS. ATTY. BALMES OCAMPOS
AM No. 4401. January 29, 2004

Facts: Complainant Biomie Sarenas-Ochagabia and her aunts engaged

the services of respondent Atty. Balmes Ocampos in a civil case for
recovery of possession and ownership of a parcel of land. An adverse
decision was rendered against complainants. Atty. Ocampos filed a
Notice of Appeal at their behest. The Court of Appeals gave them 45
days from notice to file their brief but Atty. Ocampos was granted a 90-
day extension. The extended period lapsed without an appellant’s brief
being filed, hence their appeal was dismissed. The dismissal was not
challenged, but complainants filed a complaint contending that
respondent violated his duty to inform them of his failure to file
appellant’s brief and of the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue: Whether or not respondent has exercised due diligence for the
protection of the client’s interests.

Held: A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the

responsibility of protecting the latter’s interest with utmost diligence.
By failing to file appellant’s brief, respondent was remiss in the
discharge of such responsibility. He thus violated the Code of
Professional which states:
Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after attaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without
submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
That respondent accepted to represent complainants gratis et amore
does not justify his failure to exercise due diligence in the performance
of his duty. Every case deserves full attention, diligence, and
competence regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a

fee or free.
Until his final release from the professional relation with a client, a
counsel of record is under obligation to protect the client’s interest. If a
party has a counsel of record, a court does not recognize any other

http://researchcasedigest.blogspot.com/2007/01/2006-legal-ethics-case-digest.html 13/03/2020, 9:57 PM

Page 11 of 12
 representation in behalf thereof unless in collaboration with such
counsel of record or until a formal substitution of counsel is effected.
Since respondent had not then withdrawn as counsel as he in fact filed
a motion for extension of time to file brief, he was under obligation to
discharge his professional responsibility.

P O S T E D B Y U N C B A R O P E R AT I O N S C O M M I S S I O N 2 0 0 7 AT 3 : 1 6 A M

1 COMMENT:

Pat said...

Disbarment from law should be the least of worry by attorneys

who commit larceny, embezzlement, and murder, or aid those
who do.

The ABA is critically remiss in allowing attorneys the mere

penalty of disbarment while other citizens face the severity of a
legal system attorneys are bound to honor. Dishonor may be
grounds for disbarment, but knowledgeable illegality should be
grounds for ordinary criminal application of laws. In addition,
practiced against clients, it should and could be tortious and
abusive, given the structure of the profession and code of ethics
to which all are bound.
F E B R U A R Y 7 , 20 1 1 A T 9 :22:0 0 A M P S T

Post a Comment

Newer Post Home Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

http://researchcasedigest.blogspot.com/2007/01/2006-legal-ethics-case-digest.html 13/03/2020, 9:57 PM

Page 12 of 12