“Focus on the Legal Profession"

By Justice Vicente V. Mendoza

The recent Senate impeachment trial of President Estrada focused public

attention on the role of the legal profession in our national life. Thanks to the
media coverage of the historic event, the public was afforded an insight into
the workings of a profession that theretofore had been regarded as an
esoteric calling. Its language ("gobbledygook ," as one senator called it), its
methods of proof ("Objection, your honor, the question is irrelevant, immaterial
and impertinent!"), its traditions, and its culture caught the popular
imagination, and soon the courtroom drama became a TV and radio drama,
even displacing in popularity several day-time soap operas and variety shows.
In between courtroom scenes were commentaries provided by legal
academics. All in all, it was the legal profession's greatest show! Why, even
my granddaughter, aged 6, caught the litigation fever. Once when she was
being made to drink her milk, she remonstrated: "Objection, your honor, but I
have already done so!" And so when the trial was abruptly stopped, many
missed the coverage and often reminisced several memorable scenes.

But the impeachment trial brought to public view not only the legal
profession's triumphs but also its shortcomings. I am certain that these will be
the subject of debate for a long time to come. Functioning in a lay society that
is no longer intimidated by the jargon of lawyers, the legal profession is no
longer likely to escape-public scrutiny for its performance.

By what standards should its performance be judged? Like medicine and

the ministry, law is a service profession, and, therefore, it has been suggested
it must be measured by the standard s of those professions: its
independence, its accessibility, and its learning. (Paul A. Freund, The Legal
Profession, Daeda lus 35, 39 [1965]), Time does not allow for a full
exploration of each. Let me just discuss each one briefly.

The first is independence. A lawyer 's relation to his client entails ethical
problems. Lawyers are not hired guns out to do their clients' bidding. They are
professionals, who must accordingly conduct them selves in a professional
way. To be sure, a lawyer owes entire devotion and loyalty to his client. But it
is devotion and loyalty within the bounds of honor. AP, the Code of
Professional Responsibility puts it, "'A lawyer [must] represent his client with
zeal within the bounds of the law." Justice Brandeis's advice to young lawyers
was that they should have clients rather than be somebody's lawyer.

Indeed, the involvement of lawyers in their clients' causes should not

make them oblivious to the cross currents of competing claims. What they
should do is to get immersed in their clients' cases but not to drown
themselves into their clients ' causes - they must get involved in the cases,
lest they become detached and coldly dispassionate, but they must likewise
learn to get out of the experience so to speak lest they become bemused and
sentimental.
 I recently came across an account of a young Harvard Law School
graduate, who is one of the prosecutors in the International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia. Peggy Kuo, the young lawyer, was successful in
persuading the judges to consider rape committed by Bosnian Serbs against
Muslim women during the Bosnian war as a war crime. In all interview with
Time Magazine recently, she was asked whether she does not get personally
affected by the plight of the women victims . Her reply was: "Sometimes when
you're talking to them you just have to cry, and it's O.K. It's part of the work,
and then you move on." (Time Magazine, March 26, 2001. p. 53). That is what
I mean by getting immersed in the case of one's client and then withdrawing
from the emotional experience as a necessity for maintaining one's
independence, if not one's balance.

A related aspect of the independence of the bar concerns its authority

over the discipline of its members. At present, the investigation of erring
members is undertaken by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and its
chapters. This enables lawyers to police their own ranks. It is of course true
that the ultimate responsibility for the discipline of lawyers rests in the
Supreme Court, but the screening function of the bar, when taken seriously,
allows for judgment by one's peer that in the process promotes the
independence of the bar.

The second standard of the legal profession is its accessibility, How

readily available are its services to our people? By this I do not only mean the
maintenance of legal aid clinics for indigent persons, important as this aspect
of the work of the organized bar is. Just as deserving of legal aid are those
persons who are either financially capable of paying in full for the services of a
lawyer or are unable to pay in full but nonetheless cannot be considered
indigent persons.

You may think it paradoxical that people who are Financially able would
need help. The truth is that they often do not know whom to engage as
counsel; what they thus need is a reliable system of referral which a bar
organization should be able to provide. Very often. many a balikbayan needs
referral service either because he has lost contact with local people from
having lived abroad so long, or because his problem involves complex
questions, such as estate planning and taxation.

In these instances, the bar should he able to aid the public in the selection
of a competent lawyer as part of its duty to make its services available. Legal
services are needed not only by indigent persons, but even by those who are
able to pay their way but do not know whom to engage as counsel.

Not only must legal services be available to all. Legal services must be
made available at the earliest possible time, and not when a case is already in
court. For just as there is a need for preventive medicine, there is also a need
for preventive legal counseling so that parties will be saved the trouble, the
expense, and the anxiety of litigation. Such services can range from the
drafting of contracts to the making of wills.
 Finally, in discussing the availability of the bar, let us not forget another
challenge - the readiness of its members to engage in public service. One
proud tradition of the bar in this country is that it has been the source of
leadership in our government. Despite the financial opportunities offered by
private practice, many lawyers have chosen government service, thus
vindicating the legal profession as one "charged with public duties and
responsibility." Lawyers must be able to shuttle between private practice and
government service, enjoying not only the financial privileges of the former but
also the civic rewards brought about by the latter. Public service, though
admittedly short on monetary gains, poses a unique challenge to a lawyer's
integrity as well as his competence and ability and offers psychic benefits that
go beyond pesos and centavos.

This leads me to the third standard of a profession, namely, its warning.

The Code of Professional Responsibility states that a "lawyer [must ] serve his
client with competence and diligence." But a bar to be able to discharge its
public duties and responsibilities must be a learned organization. The
proliferation of legal materials and the emergence of new specialties in law,
brought about by the growing complexity of our society, are a challenge to our
commitment to excellence -- whether as members of the practicing bar or the
academic branch of the profession.

It is in response to the tremendous developments in law in the last two

decades that the Supreme Court recently adopted the Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education for members of the IBP. Under the program, IBP members
are required to undergo every three (3) years at least thirty-six (36) hours of
legal education as follows: six (6) hours in legal ethics, four (4) hours in trial
and pre-trial skills, five (5) hours in alternative dispute resolution, nine (9)
hours in recent developments in substantive and procedural laws, four (4) in
legal writing and oral advocacy, and two (2) hours in international law and
international convent ions. The balance of six (6) hours will be devoted to
such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee.

The MCLE program is administered by a committee composed of a retired

justice of the Supreme Court, as chairperson, and four (4) members, one
nominated by the lBP, a second member nominated by the Philippine Judicial
Academy, a third one nominated by a law center, and the fourth nominated by
an association of law schools and/or law professors.

Legal education activities will be held either by providers approved or

certified by the MCLE or by those required by law to give continuing legal
education. Those who fail to comply with the MCLE without satisfactory
explanation will be required to pay a "non-compliance fee" and considered
delinquent members of the bar, who will be subject to disciplinary action by
the board of governors of the IBP and by the Supreme Court.

Exemption from the requirement to lake the MCLE is provided for certain
individuals, such as the President and Vice-President of the Philippines,
members of Congress and members of the judiciary by reason of their
positions in the government and quasi-public institutions. After they cease to
hold office by virtue of which they were exempted from the MCLE, these
members will, like any other member of the JBP, be required to comply with
the MCLE.
On the other hand, exemption from the requirement to take the MCLE
may be obtained by certain individuals, such as those who are not in law
practice or those who have retired from law practice. In addition, partial credits
may be earned for certain activities such as attendance in seminars,
conferences and the like, acting as lecturer, resource person, communicator,
etc., or writing books, and teaching.

We should not, however, delude ourselves into thinking that continuing

legal education alone can make the legal profession a learned profession. We
must know much more than the specialized skills and technical rules of our
craft. The bar must be able to communicate to the public its aims and its
purposes. It must be able to explain to lay people the laws and regulations in
clear, simple, and understandable language so that public respect for the law
will be fostered . This is an endeavor through which the learning of the bar
must be channeled.

I began by indicating what in my opinion are the implications of the recent

impeachment trial on our profession. For beyond its political importance to the
nation, it has lessons, too, for the bar. I close by expressing the hope that
these lessons be not lost on us as lawyers, proud as we are of our heritage,
and prouder still of our achievements that for so long have made our
profession a dominant force in our country. Where the impeachment trial has
shown us strengths, let us resolve to preserve those strengths. Where it has
shown us failures. Let us resolve to do right next time. Correction should
come from within, more than from without, our profession.