A lawyer must give ‘equal respect, attention, dedication and zeal in advancing a client’s cause’
The Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) mandates that every lawyer must adhere to the principle of equality.
It is the lawyer’s duty to give equal treatment and representation to every person “regardless of nationality or ethnicity, color, sexual orientation or gender identity, religion, disability, age, marital status, social or economic status” (Canon V).
For this reason, “[a] lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latter’s nationality or ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity, religion, disability, age, marital status, social or economic status, political beliefs, or such lawyer’s or the public’s opinion regarding the guilt of said person, except for justifiable reasons” (Section 1, Canon V).
Hence, a lawyer must give “equal respect, attention, dedication and zeal in advancing a client’s cause.” This duty must be observed by the lawyer “regardless of [his or her] personal opinion, religious or political beliefs… on the personal circumstances of the client…” (Canon V).
As lawyers are human, they naturally have personal opinions, whether positive or negative about their clients.
However, these should not affect the standard of service that a lawyer renders a client.
A lawyer’s religious or political views should not affect either the manner of service given to a client.
This author opines the personal biases and prejudices of a lawyer towards a client must not in any way impact on the legal service to be provided to the latter.
The moment the legal engagement is consummated, it is the lawyer’s duty to maintain a relationship of trust and harmony with the client.
It is the duty of a lawyer to “observe the same standard of service for all clients, regardless of remuneration, except for the higher standard required for representation of vulnerable persons” (Section 4, Canon V).
The CPRA decrees a standard of service for vulnerable persons higher than ordinary clients.
The CPRA introduced vulnerable persons as a new class of client and are entitled to a higher standard of service from a lawyer.
Knowing the sensitivities and special circumstances of a vulnerable person, a lawyer must assert the latter’s right to meaningful access to justice (see Section 2, Canon V).
The higher standard of service to be given by the lawyer may vary from one vulnerable person to another, the reason being that the parameters in providing a higher standard of service may differ depending on the conditions, needs, and circumstances surrounding the case of a vulnerable person.
“A vulnerable person is a person who is at a higher risk of harm than others…”
Examples are “children, the elderly, the homeless, persons with disability, persons deprived of liberty, human rights victims, victims of domestic violence, victims of armed conflict, those who are socio-economically disadvantaged, those who belong to racial or ethnic minorities, or those with debilitating physical or mental conditions” (Section 2, Canon V).
The CPRA also clarified who can provide legal services to an indigent person and adopted the definition of an indigent under Section 21, Rule 3 of the 2019 Amended Rules of Civil Procedure.
“An indigent is any person who has no money or property sufficient for food, shelter and other basic necessities for oneself and one’s family.”
Once declared by the court as an indigent, a party shall be exempt from payment of docket and other lawful fees and may be furnished with transcripts of stenographic notes upon order of the court. However, “the amount of the docket and other lawful fees… shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent…” (Section 21, Rule 3).
In express terms, the CPRA makes it a lawyer’s duty not to refuse the representation of an indigent person, except if: “(a) the lawyer is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently…; (b) the lawyer will be placed in a conflict-of-interest situation; or (c) the lawyer is related to the potential adverse party, within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to the adverse counsel, within the fourth degree” (Section 3, Canon V).
