Monday, May 18, 2015

May the lawyer be made liable for violating lawyer-client relationship if he alleges or imputes illegal activity on the part of his client?

See - Hear and Tell…
See -
http://thelawyerspost.net/tell-and-tell/?utm_source=New+Subscribers&utm_campaign=e1811ad019-Welcome_Emails2_8_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2bd6daca43-e1811ad019-279668609#




"x x x.

May the lawyer be made liable for violating lawyer-client relationship if he alleges or imputes illegal activity on the part of his client?
“Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. The long-established rule is that an attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him in his professional character by a client, unless the latter consents. This obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arises at the inception of their relationship. The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the party’s ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client.
It must be stressed, however, that the privilege against disclosure of confidential communications or information is limited only to communications which are legitimately and properly within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those made in contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud. If the unlawful purpose is avowed, as in this case, the complainant’s alleged intention to bribe government officials in relation to his case, the communication is not covered by the privilege as the client does not consult the lawyer professionally. It is not within the profession of a lawyer to advise a client as to how he may commit a crime as a lawyer is not a gun for hire. Thus, the attorney-client privilege does not attach, there being no professional employment in the strict sense.
Be that as it may, respondent’s explanation that it was necessary for him to make the disclosures in his pleadings fails to satisfy us. The disclosures were not indispensable to protect his rights as they were not pertinent to the foreclosure case. It was improper for the respondent to use it against the complainant in the foreclosure case as it was not the subject matter of litigation therein and respondent’s professional competence and legal advice were not being attacked in said case. A lawyer must conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients, with integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach.1 His relationship with his clients should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith and fairness.”
The lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for six months."
 
See- 
A.C. No. 4078 July 14, 2003, WILLIAM ONG GENATO, complainant, vs.  ATTY. ESSEX L. SILAPAN, respondent.