Duty to Respect Another Lawyer’s Engagement | LEGAL ETHICS: CANON II. Propriety

COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION ON THE DUTY TO RESPECT ANOTHER LAWYER’S ENGAGEMENT
(Under Philippine Legal and Ethical Rules)

I. INTRODUCTION

In Philippine legal ethics, one of the core obligations of a lawyer is to uphold collegiality, respect, and fairness in dealing with fellow members of the Bar. Within this mandate is the duty to respect another lawyer’s engagement with a client. This principle ensures that the dignity of the legal profession is maintained and that clients’ interests are protected. Violations of this duty can subject a lawyer to disciplinary action ranging from admonition to suspension or even disbarment.

Although often subsumed under broader ethical canons and rules (such as the old 1988 Code of Professional Responsibility or the newly promulgated Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability), the specific directive not to encroach upon or undermine the professional relationship between another lawyer and his or her client remains constant. Below is a meticulous exposition of this duty, its legal basis, and its practical implications.

II. LEGAL BASES

A. Under the 1988 Code of Professional Responsibility (Old Code)

  1. Canon 7 – A lawyer shall uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession….

    • Respecting the ongoing engagement of another lawyer with a client is consistent with preserving the profession’s integrity. Undermining another lawyer’s existing attorney-client relationship can be seen as an affront to the dignity of the profession.

  2. Canon 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his professional colleagues….

    • Interfering with or attempting to supplant another lawyer without just cause is not an act of courtesy or fairness. Hence, Canon 8 implicitly demands that lawyers not meddle with engagements that colleagues have legally secured.

  3. Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.

    • While focused on lawyer-client relationships, it implies that a lawyer’s desire for new clients should not override the principle of fairness. Soliciting a client already represented by another counsel could violate both loyalty (if done through misleading statements about the other lawyer) and fairness.

  4. Rule 2.03 – A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.

    • Aggressive or unethical solicitation—such as persuading a client to discharge existing counsel—violates this rule.

  5. Relevant Jurisprudence (Old Code Era)

    • The Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished lawyers who interfere with existing counsel relationships or who entice clients to terminate such relationships prematurely. Disciplinary cases often emphasize that while a client has the absolute right to choose counsel, a lawyer must not instigate the change in a manner that offends ethical standards.

B. Under the 2023 Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (New Code)

With the Supreme Court’s promulgation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, several provisions reorganize and modernize the ethical canons. Although numbered and phrased differently, the essence of the duty to respect another lawyer’s engagement remains. Generally:

  1. Canon on Propriety:

    • This canon consolidates rules that command lawyers to act in a manner that preserves public confidence in the profession. Under this umbrella, a lawyer is prohibited from tarnishing the professional relationship a fellow lawyer has built with a client.

  2. Duty to Avoid Unethical Solicitation and Unfair Competition:

    • The new Code continues to prohibit conduct amounting to “ambulance chasing,” direct solicitation, or any maneuver that aims to secure professional employment by displacing or demeaning a currently engaged lawyer.

  3. Duty of Respect and Collegiality:

    • The new Code underscores the lawyer’s obligation to be courteous and cooperative with colleagues, an obligation that includes refraining from undermining existing engagements.

C. Supplementary Sources

  • Rules of Court on Discipline of Attorneys: The Rules of Court empower the Supreme Court to discipline attorneys for misconduct, which includes unethical interference with another lawyer’s client.
  • IBP (Integrated Bar of the Philippines) Opinions: From time to time, the IBP issues opinions clarifying ethical boundaries. While not binding upon the Supreme Court, these opinions provide persuasive guidance in day-to-day practice.

III. RATIONALE FOR THE DUTY

  1. Protection of Client Interests

    • A stable attorney-client relationship fosters trust and effective advocacy. Prematurely encouraging a client to sever ties with an existing lawyer for personal gain can cause confusion and harm to the client’s case.

  2. Maintenance of Professional Harmony

    • The legal profession functions effectively when its members uphold mutual respect. Unwarranted competition or hostility jeopardizes both collegiality and the profession’s reputation.

  3. Preservation of Public Trust

    • The public’s perception of attorneys as honorable advocates and advisers is vital. When clients see lawyers undercutting one another for employment, trust in the entire justice system erodes.

  4. Encouragement of Merit-Based Engagement

    • Clients should select or change counsel on legitimate grounds (expertise, conflict of interest, lack of chemistry, etc.) rather than because of undue persuasion or inducement by another lawyer.

IV. SCOPE OF THE DUTY

  1. Non-Interference with Existing Counsel

    • A lawyer must not encourage a client—especially one in a sensitive case—to discharge current counsel in favor of his or her services without valid reasons.
    • If a client independently terminates an engagement, a new lawyer can ethically accept representation but must ensure it was done without unethical prompting.

  2. No Direct Solicitation

    • Direct, in-person, or targeted solicitation that encourages a client to switch counsel is disallowed.
    • Lawyers must also refrain from indirectly causing a client to question the competence or reliability of existing counsel merely to attract business.

  3. Avoidance of Unauthorized Communication

    • Lawyers should not communicate with a represented party without the consent of or notice to the party’s current counsel. This includes settlement negotiations, official communications, or strategic advice that bypasses the attorney of record.
    • Exception: When the court or specific rules permit direct communication (e.g., in certain administrative or official settings), but even then, courtesy dictates informing opposing or existing counsel.

  4. Duty in Joint or Successive Representation

    • In cases of joint representation (where multiple lawyers or law firms represent a single client), each lawyer must respect the contributions, role, and existing agreements of co-counsel.
    • In successive representation (where a client transfers from one lawyer to another), the incoming counsel must observe professional courtesy by ensuring that the former lawyer is properly relieved and that all relevant files and documents are turned over in an orderly manner, subject to the client’s instructions and any attorney’s liens.

V. MANIFESTATIONS AND EXAMPLES OF VIOLATIONS

  1. Persuading a Client to Discharge Counsel for Monetary Reasons

    • Offering reduced fees, promising “faster results,” or hinting at unethical shortcuts to induce a client to replace current counsel.

  2. Publicly Criticizing Another Lawyer’s Strategy or Competence

    • A lawyer who goes on social media or communicates with the client directly to undermine the strategy of existing counsel—except in a proper and respectful context (like a second-opinion scenario)—risks breaching this duty.

  3. Sending Private Messages to a Represented Adverse Party

    • If a lawyer directly contacts the opposing party who already has a lawyer, discussing settlement or case strategy, this violates not only the duty to respect another lawyer’s engagement but also standard rules on professional conduct and fair dealing.

  4. Refusing to Cooperate in the Turnover of Documents

    • When stepping in as new counsel, intentionally withholding key information or refusing a reasonable request from prior counsel for the smooth transition is a form of disrespect to the existing engagement.

VI. CONSEQUENCES AND SANCTIONS

  1. Administrative Sanctions by the Supreme Court

    • Admonition/Reprimand: For less severe breaches.
    • Suspension: For moderate to serious offenses that undermine the profession’s dignity.
    • Disbarment: For grievous or repeated violations evidencing moral unfitness to remain in the Bar.

  2. IBP Investigations

    • Complaints may be lodged with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, leading to formal investigations and recommendations to the Supreme Court for discipline.

  3. Civil Liability

    • If the breach leads to damages to the client or to another lawyer (for instance, if defamatory remarks are made), the erring lawyer might face civil suits for damages.

  4. Reputational Harm

    • Word travels fast in legal communities. A lawyer known to encroach on other lawyers’ engagements or to act unethically may lose the trust of peers and potential clients alike.

VII. BEST PRACTICES AND GUIDELINES

  1. Obtain Written Consent or Confirmation

    • If a new client approaches you and is still represented by counsel, politely ask for documentation confirming that the client has properly discharged the previous lawyer (e.g., a termination letter) before entering into an Attorney-Client Agreement.

  2. Exercise Prudence in Giving Second Opinions

    • If asked for a second opinion, clarify that your advice does not constitute an attempt to supplant the existing lawyer. Encourage the client to discuss concerns with current counsel first.

  3. Observe Professional Courtesies

    • Upon formally entering an appearance, notify previous counsel in writing that you have been engaged, ensuring a transparent transition and requesting pertinent documents in a respectful manner.

  4. Maintain Open, Respectful Communication

    • If the client insists on changing counsel, advise them to settle any ethical or administrative concerns (like unpaid fees or retrieval of case records) before you take over. This approach upholds courtesy and prevents conflict.

  5. Adherence to Court Rules

    • In litigation, comply strictly with procedural rules regarding substitution of counsel, ensuring motions or pleadings reflect proper termination of the former engagement.

VIII. CONCLUSION

The duty to respect another lawyer’s engagement is both an ethical and professional imperative in the Philippine legal framework. It stems from foundational principles of courtesy, fairness, and the protection of client interests. By honoring the client’s autonomy while simultaneously respecting the sanctity of existing attorney-client relationships, lawyers maintain the integrity of the profession and preserve public confidence in the justice system.

Compliance with this duty not only prevents disciplinary and reputational pitfalls but also fosters a culture of professionalism and mutual respect among members of the Bar. In all cases, the guiding principle is that clients’ well-being and the profession’s honor take precedence over personal gain—an ethos that cements the nobility of law practice.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login