Lapid, Margaret Joyce R.

Page 1 of 5
Legal Ethics-B

And Justice for All

Legal Issue # 1: Throwing Punches at the System
The movie begins to unfold with Arthur Kirkland in jail for contempt of court for
having thrown a punch at the judge, Henry Fleming. His client, Jeff McCallaugh, was
sentenced to spend more time in jail notwithstanding newly found evidence proving his
innocence. Fleming’s ruling was based on mere technicality: the evidence presented
was three days beyond the statutory period.
Kirkland was so convinced of his client’s innocence that his emotions got the best
of him, landing him in prison. Was such outrage warranted? Was Kirkland’s belief in the
innocence of his client and his disgust in the judge enough justification for his
untowardly acts?
The answer is in the negative.
A lawyer’s belief of his client’s innocence or lack thereof should be proven in
pleadings and in court during hearing but never through bursts of anger and fist fights.
The courtroom indeed is a tense place to be and a melting pot of emotions- from rage to
sympathy from fear to hatred. However, a lawyer must maintain composure and grace
by the mere reason of his profession.
It is the lawyer’s duty to the Court to pay reverence and courtesy to it and the
same likewise extends to its officers by virtue of the office they hold. So no matter how
disgusting or corrupt or imprudent an officer of the Court may be, such must be dealt
with professionally and in the manner provided for in the law and the rules.
It is no easy feat. Frustration in the legal system, not uncommon in the
Philippines, sometimes pushes people up the wall and challenges them to take the legal
system in their own hands. Because of clogged dockets, incompetent lawyers, or
injudicious judges, some, if not all are exasperated, leaving so much to be done.
The many shortcomings of the legal system and those who run it must not
however deprive those who depend on it. It is thus the duty of a lawyer, armed with his
knowledge of both substantive and procedural law to maneuver his way through for the
benefit of his client, inexperienced in the field of law.
A lawyer, like Arthur Kirkland, who is passionate in what he does and aims to do
justice for his clients may be easy prey to a rigid and heartless and at times corrupt
system. He feels for his clients and that little injustice done unto them is tantamount to
tyranny. There is nothing like an ethical lawyer wanting nothing else but to give his client
what he deserves, be it life, liberty, or property.
Society needs more lawyers who put a premium in the results of their craft and
labor, who view the financial rewards as simply a by-product of their efforts and their
cause. But of course, sans the temper and tendency for violence, within the bounds
permitted by law and the rules of the profession.
Lapid, Margaret Joyce R. Page 2 of 5
Legal Ethics-B

Legal Issue # 2: Justices and Attorneys Who Know No Law

“Judge: Mr Wenke, may I ask you to step forward, please.
How many times have you been before the bench, Mr Wenke?
Mr. Wenke: Three times, Your Honour. Once for assault, once for arson,
once for grand larceny. And now indecent exposure.
Judge: What's the matter? Can't you decide what you wanna be when
you grow up? Anything to say?
Mr. Wenke: Yes, Your Honour. I'm a loyal Colts fan.
Judge: You are also a revolting, despicable scum of the earth who
should be squashed like a cockroach.
Counsellor: I object. My client has not been found guilty yet.
Judge: You're absolutely right, Counsellor. It's now 9:40. At 9:41 he will
be guilty. I find the defendant guilty. Sentence to be imposed later.”

Everyone has biases. Even the most diplomatic of individuals. It is after all,
human nature. It is however not an excuse. Especially for those whose decisions have
the power to change lives. For one, a judge must not act arbitrarily and whimsically
especially to rob someone of due of process of the law. The above-quoted portion of the
film is a telling example of how some justices take personally the cases they try. Similar
to the lawyer who takes it upon himself to defend his client even beyond his capacity as
counsel as mentioned in Issue No. 1.
Both lawyers and judges alike are not beyond the laws and rules they seek to
construe and illuminate. They must strive to draw a line, no matter how thin, between
their personal preferences or opinions and the objective truth of the circumstances
before them.
The quote is a lucid illustration of how some judges abuse their power and their
discretion. They stoop down to the level of the so-called criminals they put away. In fact,
their misuse of power negates the principles and tenets of justice they stand for. With a
mindset like that, justice is remains to be an ideal, often sought, never truly attained.
Does a judge by virtue of his position of power have the right to put a man away
without due process simply because he has been disrespected?
No. Justice is not vindictive as many perceive it to be. Some do not even
considered fair. Justice is a concept of what is morally right or what one “deserves”
according to the facts of a case. I was once told that justice is simply a state of mind.
And I do agree. Plus, it is what you can prove in court. Once all the cards are laid out on
the table, that’s only moment a judge may rule.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse in the same manner as knowledge of the
law is not excuse to manipulate it and later disregard it. Laws exist to protect individuals
from oppression and even biases, to discount such rules simply frustrates the ends of
justice. It is for the judge to practice impartially and to promote the same, he must be
deaf to insult, threat, or to bribery and he must firm in his words. He must conduct
himself in a professional manner worthy to be called “your honor”.
Lapid, Margaret Joyce R. Page 3 of 5
Legal Ethics-B

Legal Issue # 3: One Life Takes Away Two, Was It Worth It?
Jay Porter, Arthur Kirkland’s law firm partner and friend, arrives at Arthur’s
apartment hysterical. His client was accused of murder. Jay, knowing his client was
indeed guilty, got him acquitted based on a technicality. Later, it was found that his
client had done it again- he killed two kids.
The mandate of a lawyer is clear, to defend his client to the best of his
knowledge and discretion. The lawyer-client privilege provided in our Rules of Court
comes into play. However, the rules of conscience and the greater good are not as
clear.
Up to what extent should a lawyer adhere to the laws of ethics when the laws of
human conscience interfere?
Jay Porter lost his mind. Shaved his head. Started hurling plates in court. The
tortured soul, wondering how he could live with himself. He got one man off the hook
thanks to his ability as a lawyer and to his dedication to serve his client. But in exchange
for one man’s liberty, two young lives were taken.
Is this what the Code of Ethics intended? To defend the guilty because of a
privilege? If yes, then such rules make no sense, the noble purpose defeated. How can
such be reconciled? Is it even possible?
Such questions are encountered perhaps almost everyday for your average
lawyer. Although they are encountered does not necessarily mean they are given
substantial thought. Most come off in the form of a rhetorical question, somehow
lingering almost always nearly forgotten. They don’t seem to haunt most lawyers.
Should the Code be strictly adhered to? Who dictates what is ethical to begin
with? Human experience has taught most of us that there is some greater good than
ethics. It is however unfathomable as it is inextricable. But is exists. This so-called
“greater good” and ethics may exist in harmony or at times clash against each other, a
somewhat inner battle.
Jay Porter did what he should do. He did what every ethical and upright attorney
would do. He cannot truly be blamed for the actions of his client at a later time, he
cannot be expected to foresee the actions and mental on-goings of his then-client’s
mind. But he could not help but blame himself, as it seems he was the agent of that
change, it was because of him, his client was set free, at liberty to kill once again.
The lawyer’s duty to his client is mentally and emotionally taxing. As stated in
Agpalo’s book on Legal and Judicial Ethics: “The rule and ethics of the legal profession
demand that the attorney subordinate his personal and private duties to those which he
owes the court and to the public.1” His client’s interest must take precedence over his
interest. Such personal sacrifices, as mentioned in the same book, are inherent in the
practice of law which he assumed when he took his oath of office.2
1
Agpalo, Ruben. Legal and Judicial Ethics 11, (2009).
2
Id. (p. 12)
Lapid, Margaret Joyce R. Page 4 of 5
Legal Ethics-B

Legal Issue # 4: Is the Attorney-Client Privilege Absolute?

There was said to be blackmail involved. Judge Rayford told Kirkland he would
be disbarred if he refused to take Judge Fleming’s case despite Kirkland’s repulsion for
him. Judge Rayford referred to a prior case Kirkland handled in which he violated the
attorney-client privilege. Kirkland believed that going against the said privilege was the
only way to prevent a pre-meditated crime. Since he feared for the loss of his
profession, he agreed to handle Judge Fleming’s rape case.
The attorney-client privilege is a relationship of utmost trust. Faith that the
attorney would not divulge any information prejudicial to his client. Confidence on the
part of the client, that he would confess every detail to his counsel that the latter may
aptly defend him. It is sacred in that violating the privilege would cause great disgrace
on the part of the attorney and discredit the integrity of the legal profession. It would
create an environment of distrust for lawyers and for what they stand. Thus this privilege
is treated with extremely high regard. Discounting such would merit that lawyer an
identity as an outcast in the legal system.
But what if by virtue of the attorney-client privilege, a lawyer learns of a crime to
be committed? Would that justify disregard of the said privilege?
In Agapalo’s commentary, it was mentioned that the attorney’s oath requires him
to be absolutely honest even though his client’s interest may demand a contrary
course.3 This may be viewed as a means to reconcile a lawyer’s duty to the public vis-à-
vis his duty to his client. In the hierarchy of priorities in the rules and ethics of the legal
profession, a lawyer must first put the interest of the court above everything else. His
client comes in second while his personal interest must come last.
Thus with knowledge of a crime to be committed, with lives possibly at stake,
such would justify the violation of the privilege and perhaps the only instance where it
would be deemed acceptable. But such action may still be viewed with much criticism
and scrutiny. It is not black and white. The choices the lawyer makes in such a case
bears much weight in society and is without dire consequences. Possible disbarment or
suspension is not too far away. Is a lawyer really willing to give up his bread and butter?
In the film, all Kirkland knew was to be a lawyer. That’s what his uncle wanted for
him as well. Practical and modern needs dictate that doing what is right is not
necessarily the trend when it costs you your living or even your life. Whistle-blowers
don’t have it easy at all. But then, conscience is a power to be reckoned with.
The attorney-client privilege is placed on a precarious pedestal at times because
it may be a source of abuse for cunning clients, a trap for the most unsuspecting
lawyers. In the tangled legal web we weave, even clients are capable of wreaking havoc
in the legal system, using the law to shield their misdoings.

3
Id. (p.11)
Lapid, Margaret Joyce R. Page 5 of 5
Legal Ethics-B

Legal Issue # 5: Weight of Values

What would your reason be that you would defend as counsel an unscrupulous
and sick judge who regards himself as a true man of law?
For Arthur Kirkland, it was a mix of fear and hope. Fear that he would be
disbarred if he chose otherwise. And hope that Judge Fleming would reconsider the
case of Jeff McCallaugh and rule on Kirkland’s motion for new trial favorably. It meant
so much to him to get Jeff out of prison. It is, after all, a classic case of mistaken identity
and so plainly put, truly a case of being in jail too long simply for a busted tail-light.
As the film progresses, Jeff is killed in a hostage situation and Judge Fleming is
undeniably guilty as charged. Kirkland no longer has anything to stand for. He questions
his values, he questions the consequence of being true to the oath he had taken at the
commencement of his profession. As an ethical practitioner, he knew he had sworn to
defend his client to the best of his knowledge and ability. What left doubt in his mind
was that, whether ethics called for discounting integrity and justice in favor being true to
the letter of the law.
The film is also a portrayal of the bleak side of ethics in the profession. As earlier
mentioned, the attorney-client privilege is often taken advantage of by those who know
how to manipulate the system. It is a peak in to the alternative route of opting not to
honor the privilege, losing a much respected title and profession. It entertains rippling
questions as to the extent of the application of ethics to real life practice.
Not all are a bold and as sure as Kirkland. He was ready and willing to let go of
his profession by his laudable yet daring acts in court. Although he may be stripped of a
notoriously sought-after title, he is nonetheless the epitome of what a lawyer should be
and the embodiment of the principles of the profession. Indeed, as the Latin maxim
goes, “let justice be done though the heavens fall”.
“The one thing that bothered me, the one thing that stayed in my
mind and I couldn't get rid of it, that haunted me, was why. Why
would she lie? What was her motive for lying? If my client is
innocent, she's lying, why? Was it blackmail? No. Was it jealousy?
No. Yesterday I found out why. She doesn't have a motive, you
know why? Because she's not lying... And ladies and gentlemen of
the jury, the prosecution is not going to get that man today, no,
because I'm gonna get him! my client, the Honorable Henry T.
Fleming, should go right to fucking jail! The son of a bitch is
guilty! “

-Arthur Kirkland