LEGAL ETHICS BAR EXAM with suggested answers.

7/22/2019 LEGAL ETHICS BAR EXAM with suggested answers.

1/5

GROUP NO. 6

Dy, Blake Clinton Atty. Elba Cruz

Garcia, Rosette PALE

Guilin, Ayes!a

"unico, #a. Corazon

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

%&&' LEGAL E()*C" BAR E+A#

*

C!ristine as a--ointe counsel de oficio /or 0u1a, !o as accuse o/ ra-in !is on au!ter.

0u1a -leae not uilty but t!erea/ter -ri2ately a1itte to C!ristine t!at !e i co11it t!e

cri1e c!are.

a. *n li!t o/ 0u1a3s a1ission, !at s!oul C!ristine o4 E5-lain. 789

Christine should suggest to Zuma that he should plead guilty to the crime as charged.

Canon 19, Rule 19.02 of the CPR states that :alawyer who has received information that his client

has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or triunal, shall promptly

call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the relationship withsuch client in accordance with the Rules of Court.!

b. Can C!ristine isclose t!e a1ission o/ 0u1a to t!e court4 ;!y or !y not4 %89

"o, Christine cannot disclose Zuma#s admission to the court.

Canon 21, Rule 21.02 of the CPR provides that $a lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client,

use information ac%uired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the same to his own

advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full &nowledge of the circumstancesconsents thereto.!

Christine cannot disclose the admission without violating the aovementioned canon. 'he

information disclosed is in the nature of a privileged communication, hence, she cannot disclose itto the court without Zuma#s consent.

c. Can C!ristine it!ra as counsel o/ 0u1a s!oul !e insist in oin to trial4 E5-lain.

789

Christine cannot withdraw as counsel of Zuma.

Canon 1(, Rule 1(.01 of CPR states that $a lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on

account of the latter#s race, se). creed or status of life, or ecause of his own opinion regarding theguilt of said person.!

*espite the admission of Zuma, Christine cannot withdraw as Zuma#s counsel ecause Zuma is still

considered innocent until proven guilty. +urther, there may e mitigating circumstances thatChristine may raise as a defense that is favorale to Zuma.

**

n 199-, carama, a telecommunications company, signed a retainer agreement with /ianca ophia

aw 3ffice 4/ 5 for the latter6s legal services for a fee of P2,000 a month. +rom 199- to 2001, the

only service actually performed y / for carama was the review of a lease agreement and

representation of carama as a complainant in a ouncing chec&s case. carama stopped payingretainer fees in 2002 and terminated its retainer agreement with / in 2007. n 2008, 'emavous,

another telecommunications company, re%uested / to act as its counsel in the followingtransactions 4a5 the ac%uisition of carama: and 45 the ac%uisition of uper;


2/5

lawyer should safeguard the confidences of his former client. n the case of ac%uisitions, /

would definitely have an undue advantage 4Rule 21.02;.0>5, or to appear to have such, in assisting

'emavous6 ac%uisition of its former client due to its prior relationship. n contrast, as to the case ofuper;


3/5

transfer would only occur in case a favorale ?udgment is otained. +urther, the case reached the

upreme Court which means that aarni spent so much time on the case and much of her s&ills

were demanded hence the 170 million is a fair and reasonale fee.

?

'he vendor filed a case against the vendee for the annulment of the sale of a piece of land.

a. Assu1e t!e 2enee obtaine a su11ary u1ent aainst t!e 2enor. ;oul t!e counsel

/or t!e e/enant 2enee be entitle to en/orce a c!arin lien4 E5-lain. >89

"o, vendee#s counsel would not e entitled to enforce a charging lien.

charging lien to e enforceale there must e a ?udgment for money. n the case at ar, there wasno mention of a ?udgment for money in favor of the vendee thus vendee#s counsel cannot enforce a

charging lien.

Fowever, if there would e a ?udgment for money vendee#s counsel would e entitled to enforce thecharging lien.

b. Assu1e, t!rou! t!e e5cellent ork o/ t!e 2enee3s counsel at t!e -retrial con/erence an

!is ise use o/ 1oes o/ isco2ery, t!e 2enor as co1-elle to 1o2e /or t!e is1issal o/

t!e co1-laint. *n its orer t!e court si1-ly rante t!e 1otion. ;oul your anser be t!e

sa1e as in uestion a94 E5-lain. 789

Gendee#s counsel would still not e entitled to enforce a charging lien.

dismissal on motion of the plaintiff would certainly not include a ?udgment for money. 'herfore,

the counsel cannot enforce a charging lien.

?*

tty. igail filed administrative cases efore the upreme Court against Budge uis. 'hereafter, tty.

igail filed a Hotion for nhiition praying that Budge uis inhiit himself from trying, hearing or inany manner acting on all cases, civil and criminal, in which tty. igail is involved and handling.

"!oul Fue Luis in!ibit !i1sel/ as -raye /or by Atty. Abiail4 E5-lain /ully. 689

"o. /eing the su?ect of an administrative case is not one of the grounds for dis%ualification of a

?udge from handling case provided y the Code of Budicial Responsiility in Canon > Rule 12.

?**

n need of legal services, "i&o secured an appointment to meet with tty. Fenry of Fenry Heyer aw3ffices. *uring the meeting, "i&o divulged highly private information to tty. Fenry, elieving that the

lawyer would &eep the confidentiality of the information. use%uently, "i&o was shoc&ed when he

learned that tty. Fenry had shared the confidential information with his law partner, tty. Heyer, andtheir common friend, private practitioner tty. Canonigo. Ahen confronted, tty. Fenry replied that

"i&o never signed any confidentiality agreement, and that he shared the information with the two

lawyers to secure affirmance of his legal opinion on "i&o6s prolem. *id tty. Fenry violate any rule ofethicsI =)plain fully. 4=85

Canon 21 provides that an attorney shall preserve the confidence of his client and further articulates

this point in Rule 21.0>;.0( y clarifying that he may not disclose such information to outside

agencies without the consent of his client and that he may disclose such information to firm partnersunless prohiited y his client. n the case of tty. Heyer, he was a firm partner and as such is

covered y Rule 21.0( and not eing e)plicitly prohiited y "i&o Fenry committed no wrong in

giving information to him. Fowever in the case of tty. Canonigo who was not in any wayconnected to the firm Fenry committed a gross violation of Rule 21.0>. n either case the mere

entry into the attorney;client relationship oviates the need for a confidentiality agreement.

?***


4/5

tate, with a rief e)planation, whether the lawyer concerned may e sanctioned for the conduct stated

elow.

a. ilin a co1-laint t!at /ails to state a cause o/ action, t!ereby resultin in t!e e/enant

succeein in !is 1otion to is1iss. 789

@es. Canon 1-, Rule 1-.02 states that $ lawyer shall not handle any legal matter withoutade%uate preparation.! lawyer should have e)ercised diligence and made ade%uate preparations

to ascertain that the complaint stated a cause of action to prevent the dismissal of the complaint.

b. A sus-ene layer orkin as an ine-enent leal assistant to at!er in/or1ation an

secure ocu1ents /or ot!er layers urin t!e -erio o/ !is sus-ension. 789

@es. Jnder the law, only lawyers in good standing can perform or engage in the practice of law.

n the case of Cayetano vs. Honsod, the Court held that the practice of law involves rendering

serice to the genral pulic that calls for the professional ?udgment of a lawyer, the essence ofwhich is his educated aility to relate the general ody and philosophy of law to a specified legal

prolem. Clearly, the act of wor&ing as a legal assistant in gathering information and securing

documents for other lawyers is within the scope of practicing law. suspended lawyer istemporarily prohiited to practice the legal profession therefor he cannot engage in the

mentioned acts.

c. A sus-ene layer alloin !is nonlayer sta// to acti2ely o-erate !is la o//ice an

conuct business on be!al/ o/ clients urin t!e -erio o/ sus-ension. 789

@es. Canon 9, Rule 9.01 states that $alawyer shall not delegate to any un%ualified person theperformance of any tas& which y law may only e performed y a memer of the ar in good

standing.!

. Hee-in 1oney !e collecte as rental /ro1 !is client3s tenant an re1ittin it to t!e client

!en aske to o so. 789

@es. Canon 1


5/5

b. Deciin a case in accorance it! a "u-re1e Court rulin but ain t!at !e oes not

aree it! t!e rulin. 789

"o. 'here is no law or rule prohiiting such conduct. Regardless of his opinion, the ?udge stillfollowed the upreme Court#s ruling thus there is really nothing wrong with such act. +urther, his

opinion will not have any earing as it is not part of the decision.

c. Dictatin !is ecision in o-en court i11eiately a/ter trial. 789

@es. ?udge should uphold the integrity and independence of the ?udiciary. Fe must not hastily

issue decisions.

LEGAL ETHICS BAR EXAM with suggested answers.

Documents

Transcript of LEGAL ETHICS BAR EXAM with suggested answers.