A content analysis of disbarment cases involving canons of legal ethics on the morality of lawyers

Abstract

This study analyzed selected disbarment cases on the ground of immorality which are violative, specifically, of Rules 1.01 Canon 1 and 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Disbarment is the act of the court in withdrawing from an attorney the privilege to practice law. Accordingly, to justify suspension or disbarment, the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or an act so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. However, after the content analysis of ten (10) disbarment cases, it has been found out that despite of the prohibitions laid down by said Rules which were designed for lawyers to deter from committing immoral acts, there are lawyers who are still facing disbarment cases on the ground of immorality. As a matter of fact, some were already suspended and disbarred. Thus this study was contemplated to examine Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility on the Morality of Lawyers; to evaluate the rationale of both Rules; to analyse Supreme Court decisions concerning violations thereon; and, to determine disciplinary measures imposed by the Supreme Court. Qualitative Data Analysis was the method used in this study where certain disbarment cases on the ground of immorality were analysed. Moreover, ten (10) disbarment cases on the ground of immorality from the year 2012 to 2016 were gathered and extracted from the website lawphil.net. Also, online sources, books, journals, news, other laws and jurisprudence related to this study were used to support researcher’s analysis.