ACCESS Online MCLE Course

ETHICAL PITFALLS AND

CONSIDERATIONS IN HANDLING
HIGH-PROFILE CASES
By ATTY. HOWARD CALLEJA
INTRODUCTION
A lawyer’s service is sought after by high-profile clients and such usually entail many rewards, among which
is building a name for a lawyer.

A distortion may arise in one’s ethical responsibilities when handling such caliber of high-profile cases due
to the fame and fortune involved.

Hi, I’m Atty. Howard Calleja. Our discussion for today will tackle the pertinent rules and canons under the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

There will be five sections in this course pertaining to the pertinent ethical responsibilities of a lawyer:

1. Duty to the client where a lawyer is reminded that when one’s legal service is undertaken, a personal
assessment of one’s qualifications in handling the needed service is essential. This is important in
order to prevent overstating the prospects of the case to impress the client and to properly set the
expectations that would meet not only the client’s but also of the law.

2. The role that media and publicity plays in such cases. A lawyer must take caution and exercise
prudence because of the possible influence in making public statements and media coverage which
may result in impartiality.

3. Duty to the Court, the client may pay the bills, but a lawyer is an officer of the court and has a duty to
assist in the speedy and administration of justice.

4. A high degree of confidentiality will always be expected.

5. The payment of just fees since the practice of law is a profession and not a business.

The fame and fortune resulting from being a celebrity and defense lawyer may make or break one’s career.
However, when one maintains and practices the ethical professional responsibility needed from a lawyer, such
would make the privilege of practicing law more worthwhile.

The module discusses the different areas which may be overlooked, especially when dealing with high
profile cases. This will help prepare in dealing with them without sacrificing the ethical standards expected
from an officer of the Court.

Remembering the points discussed here will, in addition to making sure the scales of justice are balanced,
help one maintain the integrity of the profession. This course will be a reminder of the pitfalls and
considerations when handling high-profile cases. Being in the limelight can lead one’s ethical practices
astray.

The Code of Professional Responsibility helps in keeping lawyer’s in check which sometimes, if overlooked,
may cause lapses in the performance of one’s duty.

By the end of this module, you should be able to:

• Describe each section pertaining to the pertinent ethical responsibilities of a lawyer

• Classify if the situation violates the Code of Professional Responsibility
• Determine the violation relating to the Code of Professional Responsibility
MODULE 1: Duty of the Lawyer to a Client
According to Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), once he agrees to take up the cause
of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him.

This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by the law and he may expect his lawyer to assert such remedy or defense.

If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the
correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public.

A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also
serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal
profession.

From the moment a lawyer is engaged by a client for a legal service, he becomes more than an ordinary agent
of such client. The lawyer’s acceptance is an implied representation that he possesses the academic learning,
skill and ability to handle the case.

He or she now has the duty to represent his client with zeal, albeit within the bounds of the law, as required
by Canon 19 of the CPR.

The client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by law, and he
may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy in his defense. Thus, Rule 18.01 of the CPR states that a
lawyer should make sure that he or she is qualified to render the service of which he is engaged, otherwise
he should not undertake such service.

The full protection of the client’s interests requires no less than a mastery of the applicable law and the facts
involved in a case, regardless of the nature of the assignment.

In high profile cases, lawyers may be tempted to take up the cause of celebrity clients or litigants that bring
high media mileage, but they should assess themselves and check if they are qualified to be able to defend
them, rather than accepting the engagement of clients because of their status.

In any case, whether high-profile or not, lawyers should observe the same standards of service for all their
clients. Inadequate preparations can cause adverse effects, both to the lawyer and the client involved.

In addition, Rule 15.05 of the CPR requires that lawyers, when advising their clients, neither overstate nor
understate the prospects of a client’s case. Lawyers should only answer clients’ queries after having full
knowledge of client’s causes, and after studying the case.

In high-profile cases, lawyers may tend to overstate the prospects of a client, for several reasons: to encourage
litigation and therefore increase publicity, to impress clients or maybe to temper their expectations, or to even
save face.

However, it is the duty of a lawyer to give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of
the case. He or she should also advise his or her client to stop when the action is devoid of merit, and pursue
a case when it is meritorious.

In relation to this, Rule 15.06 of the CPR states that in doing so, lawyers shall not state or imply that they are
able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body, whether this is true or not. Instead, they should
endeavor to win their cases based on the merits, and not based on their connections.
To summarize, the purpose of the legal profession is public service and to secure justice.

Thus, lawyers owe their clients integrity in the practice of their profession in a manner beyond approach, which
includes being fully prepared to take up their cases, and to handle their dealings and transactions
appropriately.

MODULE 2: Lawyer’s Approach to Media and Publicity

In handling high-profile cases, lawyers may find that publicity and dealing with the media may be
unavoidable. However, lawyers are provided with limits concerning these areas.

For example, Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) prohibits lawyers from making
public statements in the media regarding pending cases.

This is required to avoid any influence to a case, as well as to give respect to a party’s right to a fair trial.
Rule 3.04 of the CPR also prohibits lawyers from paying or giving anything of value to representatives of the
mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business.

The duty of a lawyer to his client and to the courts is a priority that surpasses exercising his own profession
as a business. Given all this, publicity is not always a bad thing, and can be balanced with the rights of a
party litigant and a free press.

When high-profile litigants undertake the services of lawyers, there is always the chance of media coverage
influencing the case. From the perspective of lawyers, media coverage means the chance to boost their own
names, or even the name of their law firms.

This may lead lawyers to encourage their clients to pursue legal action not just to increase the cost of litigation,
but so that media coverage is also prolonged for their own benefit.

However, lawyers should encourage their clients to avoid, end or settle controversies if it will admit of a fair
settlement, according to Rule 1.04 of the CPR.

Aside from the advantages this publicity brings to lawyers, to do so may arouse public opinion for or against
a party to the case.

It may even tread on the duty of trial court judges to be impartial in deciding cases.

In Adelfa v. Mendoza, for example, the Court reminded the legal counsel of a party that he should have
exercised prudence and refrained from holding press conferences, issuing press statements, or giving
interviews to the media on any matter or incident related to the issues subject of the controversy. This
prohibition is founded on principles of public policy, good taste and more importantly, upon necessity.

However, the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press, and pervasive publicity is
not per se prejudicial to the trial.

Jurisprudence has provided us with the “totality of circumstances” test to assess whether publicity can be
considered influential in a certain case so as to prejudice an accused and deprive him of his rights.
In Webb v. De Leon, the court stated that the mere fact that the trial of the appellant was given a day-to-day,
gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itself prove that the publicity influenced the mind of the trial judge and
impaired his impartiality. This is because the advanced level of communication system brings news as they
happen straight to our homes through the internet.

The mere exposure of judges to publications and publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect their impartiality,
for they are learned in the law and trained to disregard off-court evidence and on-camera performances of
parties to litigation.

In fact, responsible reporting enhances the accused's right to a fair trial for a responsible press has always
been regarded as the criminal field.

Media coverage may also have its advantages, to the benefit of the legal system. One famous example of this
are the cases on the Maguindanao Massacre, where the Supreme Court granted the request for live broadcast
by television and radio of the trial court proceedings, subject to the guidelines therein.

Of course, one apparent circumstance that sets the Maguindanao Massacre cases apart from other cases is
the impossibility of accommodating even the parties to the cases – the complainants/families of the victims
and other witnesses – inside the courtroom.

The proceedings already necessarily entail the presence of hundreds of families, who have as much interest,
beyond mere curiosity, to attend or monitor the proceedings as those of the impleaded parties or trial
participants. The participation of the media had allowed the Court in order to address the shortcomings of
court spaces, among others.

In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the client’s case,
including its weak and strong points. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care. No
opportunity must be given to him to take advantage of his client; for if the confidence is abused, the profession
will suffer by loss thereof.

Thus, Rule 3.04 of the CPR states that it is also the duty of lawyers not to pay or give anything of value to
representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business.
In sum, lawyers must be aware of how they use the media to their advantage in the practice of their profession,
and be mindful of the influence of publicity to the profession, to their clients, and to the courts.

MODULE 3: Duty of the Lawyer to the Courts

Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) bestows to lawyers the primary duty to assist in
the speedy and efficient administration of justice once they become members of the bar, for the practice of
law is not a right but a privilege.

Thus, lawyers should be reminded of their duty to give respect to the courts by observing proper behavior.
The use of abusive language in the courts is prohibited by Rule 11.03 of the CPR, no matter who it is
directed to.

Lawyers also have the corresponding duty to give respect to judicial officers.

Canon 13 of the CPR states that they must rely on the merits of their cause and avoid committing any act
that would influence or give the appearance of influencing the court, nor should they cultivate familiarity with
the judges or impute upon them any improper motives, for this affects the public’s perception of the
administration of justice by the courts.
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. One of these conditions is the duty to assist in
the speedy and efficient administration of justice, found in Canon 12 of the CPR, which lawyers shall exert
every effort to fulfill.

Like the court itself, lawyers are instruments to advance its ends – the speedy, efficient, impartial, correct and
inexpensive adjudication of cases and the prompt satisfaction of final judgments.

The administration of justice is a lawyer’s primary duty, even above his duty to a client.

A lawyer should not only help attain these objectives but should likewise avoid any unethical or improper
practices that impede, obstruct or prevent their realization, charged as he is with the primary task of
assisting in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. As officers of the court, lawyers should in no
way indulge in any act that would damage the image of judges, lest the public’s perception of the
dispensation of justice be overshadowed by iniquitous doubts.

Rule 11.03 of the CPR states that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.

He or she owes the court the duty to observe and maintain a respectful attitude not for the sake of the
temporary incumbent of the judicial office but for the maintenance of its supreme importance.

This helps build the high esteem and regard towards them which is essential to the proper administration of
justice as well.

Use of abusive language against the opposing counsel is also considered disrespect to the dignity of the
court justice. A lawyer’s language should be forceful but dignified. A lawyer pleads; he does not dictate.

A lawyer handling high-profile cases may be tempted to use strong language in court that borders abusive
language, in order to impress his client and the public. He is not at liberty to use arrogance or intimidation,
whether to the opposing counsel, the judge, or any witnesses appearing in court.

Canon 13 dictates that a lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which
tends to influence or give the appearance of influencing the court.

Resorting to such improper acts also affect the administration of justice, in that it lessens the confidence of the
public in the legal system. Thus, this should be avoided, as using public opinion to further his case may affect
the regularity and fairness of the trial.

One such act that was considered improper by the Court was the request of a lawyer in a newspaper article
for the Supreme Court to dispel rumors that it would rule on a law as unconstitutional, which was the case of
In Re: Petition to Disqualify Atty. Leonard De Vera.

This affects the perception of the public that such practice is tolerated by the courts. In fact, this lawyer was
judged guilty of indirect contempt.

In essence, a lawyer’s behavior in the courts affects the public’s perception of the administration of justice by
the courts, including his clients’. Thus, he should see to it that he upholds the authority and the dignity of the
court, as a member of the bar and as an officer of the court.
MODULE 4: Duty of the Lawyer to Preserve Clients Confidence
Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly provides that a lawyer shall preserve the
confidence and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.

In the landmark case of Regala et. al vs. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court discussed the fiduciary duty of
a counsel and what makes the law profession a unique position of trust and confidence.

Considerations favoring confidentiality in lawyer-client relationships gives flesh to one of the most sacrosanct
rights available to the accused, the right to counsel. Further, by encouraging full disclosure to a lawyer by
one seeking legal services opens the door to a whole spectrum of legal options which would be otherwise
circumscribed by limited information engendered by a fear of disclosure.

Rule 21.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly provides that a lawyer shall not reveal the
confidences or secrets of his client except when the client consents, when required by law and when
necessary to collect fees or to defend himself.

The Supreme Court in the case of Falame vs. Baguio dictates that the client’s confidence once reposed
should not be divested by mere expiration of professional employment.

Even after the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do anything which will injuriously affect his
former client in which he previously represented him nor should he disclose or use any of the clients
confidences acquired in previous relation.

In the case of Regala et. al. vs. Sandiganbayan it was said that considerations favoring confidentiality and
policy concerns may serve several constitutional and policy concerns.

In Constitutional sphere, this rule gives flesh to the right of the accused to counsel. If a client were made to
choose between legal representation without effective communication and disclosure and legal
representation with all his secrets revealed, then he might be compelled to either to stay away from judicial
system or to lose the right to counsel.

An effective lawyer-client relationship is largely dependent upon the degree of confidence which exists
between lawyer and client which in turn requires a situation which encourages a dynamic and fruitful
exchange and flow of information.

It necessarily follows that in order to attain effective representation, the lawyer must invoke the privilege not
as a matter of option but as a matter of duty and professional responsibility.

One practical application of the lawyer’s duty to preserve client’s confidence is whenever a lawyer handles a
criminal case, he must always keep track all the highly confidential and sensitive documents and
communications being transmitted to him by the client.

A lawyer must limit people who can gain access to these documents even by his colleagues. This is
important in criminal cases since this confidentiality rule plays a big part in upholding the constitutionally
protected right of the accused to counsel.

Limiting people who can gain access to information transmitted by the client encourages him to divulge and
entrust all information at hand to his lawyer.

Apart from this, those people involved in high-profile cases expects that a lawyer shall take extra caution in
handling all these sensitive information since they have their own reputation to protect as well.
This duty must also be observed whenever a lawyer is being held under public scrutiny by the media.
While handling high profile cases attracts media attention and this may be considered as a good career
opportunity for a practicing lawyer, reasonable caution must always be exercised whenever being
interviewed by the members of the media.

One must disclose only information that is necessary to inform the public as to the status of the case without
causing undue prejudice to the obligation of the lawyer to preserve the client's confidence.
When faced with this situation, lawyers must filter out information that will be disclosed to the public.
Discussing possible defenses or evidence that may be used should be avoided at all cost since at the end of
the day lawyers are mere officers of the court and it is the court of justice who will render judgment based on
the merits.
Although the urge to disclose information publicly is tempting as this might attract possible clients and could
boost the reputation of the lawyer, the fidelity of the lawyer to the client must always prevail rather than from
the personal gains that a lawyer might earn.

In sum, lawyers must always be guided with the ethical principle of fidelity to the client’s cause and duty to
preserve client’s confidence whenever handling cases involving public interest or public figure.
The requirement of very high degree of fidelity and good faith to client’s cause is required by reason of
necessity and public interest.

MODULE 5: Attorney’s Fees

Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall charge only fair and
reasonable fees.

In the absence of any express agreement of the attorney’s fees, the principle of quantum meruit shall apply
in charging fees. This means that a lawyer shall charge only in proportion to all the efforts made by the
lawyer in pursuing the client’s case.

Considering that a lawyer has a fiduciary duty to his client, it is important that lawyers should discuss to the
client the manner of the charging the fees at the inception of the relation so as to maintain the transparency
between them.

Another Ethical principle that we must consider in handling high profile cases is the manner of charging
Attorney’s Fees.

In the case of Burbe vs. Magulta, the Supreme Court reminds that the practice of law is a profession and not
a business. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a
capital that necessarily yields profits.
The gaining of the livelihood is not a professional but a secondary consideration. Duty to public service and
to administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their
personal interests or what they owe to themselves.
The Supreme Court in the case of Ramon R. Villarama vs. Atty. Clodualdo C. De Jesus discussed the
concept of quantum meruit in charging attorney’s fees. Quantum Meruit which literally means as much as he
deserves is used as basis for determining an attorney’s professional fees in the absence of an express
agreement.
Further, Rule 20. 01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility lists the guidelines for determining his fees
among which are as follows:
A) time spent and the extent of services rendered;
B) difficulty of the questions involved;
C) importance of subject matter;
D) skill demanded, and
E) customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he
belongs.

Well settled is the rule that lawyer-client relationship starts the moment the client relayed confidential
information to the lawyer in relation to the case.
It is recommended that the lawyer should also discuss at the very beginning of the engagement to the client
the manner of charging lawyer’s fees and what would be the basis of each amount being charged.
This includes but not limited to the retainer fee, success fee and pleadings being filed depending on the
difficulty of the legal questions involved case. It is necessary that an informed consent must be obtained to
the client each time a lawyer drafts a fee proposal.
While it is true that accepting high-profile cases could entail risk not only on his security but also on his
reputation, this does not mean that lawyers could charge fees beyond what is reasonable. By discussing
clearly to the client, the manner of charging fees and the factors considered in imposing the same promotes
transparency between the lawyer and client.
It is imperative for a lawyer to always update the client in every progress of the case. This duty to keep the
client updated to every movement of the case is for the client to see all the diligent efforts being exerted by
the lawyer in pursuing the client’s case.
A lawyer must always ensure that his client can get a constant update about his case and that the lawyer is
always on top of the client’s case. In effect, the lawyer can easily charge and collect reasonable fees to his
client since diligent efforts are being exerted in pursuing the case. This is especially true for those cases
affecting public interests and public figures since people involved in these kind of cases wanted to finish the
case as soon as possible as they have their own reputation to protect as well.
In sum, lawyers must be reminded administration of justice should be the primary consideration in handling
the case and earning profit should come only secondarily.
Time and again, we need to remind every member of our profession that we should charge fees only what is
reasonable and in proportion to the effort exerted in managing the case of the client.

OUTRO:
It is important to remember that being a celebrity and defense lawyer for high-profile cases, in this day and
age comes with ethical pitfalls and considerations.

One may stray from the norms which should be embodied by lawyers when the pursue the cause of the
client. However, everyone must keep in mind the duty to the client and to the court. As well as the role media
and publicity plays, confidentiality at all times, and payment of just fees.