Lawyers and ethics
          
           By Fr. ROY CIMAGALA, 
          roycimagala@gmail.com
By Fr. ROY CIMAGALA, 
          roycimagala@gmail.com
          September 11, 2013
          MY father was a lawyer, and 
          as early as when I was in Grade 5 or 6, I already started helping 
          around in his office which actually was in our house also. 
          
          That’s when I discovered I 
          was pretty good at typing some papers, but quite a disaster when it 
          came to filing them. My father finally gave up on me in the latter, 
          but was happy with me in the former. He had a good typist who offered 
          his services gratis et amore.
          Those where very memorable 
          years when aside from learning things in school, I had the feeling I 
          was learning a lot more in my father’s office. I felt I had the edge 
          over my classmates in school because of what I got from my father’s 
          office. 
          
          There were times we had to 
          sleep late to finish some job, and I sacrificed a little of my 
          youthful preferences just to be with my father whom I idolized. But I 
          was convinced it was all worth it. I actually did not miss anything 
          from life in the streets and moviehouses with my friends.
          There were also amusing 
          moments. Many of my father’s clients were simple people from the towns 
          and mountains of Bohol. They even would often stay in our house and 
          would take their meals with us. 
          
          So, I got familiar with all 
          the idiosyncracies of the different places, especially their accents, 
          their sense of humor, their simple ways, etc. I laughed most of the 
          time with them, but there were times when I also cried with them. The 
          human drama of their cases was more absorbing than what I read in 
          novels or saw in movies.
          The evening before a trial, 
          my father would usually rehearse the clients on how to answer the 
          possible queries during the hearing. In this area, most of the time I 
          had fun just watching the simple folks grapple with the intricacies of 
          logic and legal defense. But there were also moments when I asked 
          myself whether what my father did was right.
          I was not at that time into 
          spiritual exercises or pious practices, and much less was I clear 
          about moral principles. But something told me there were things that 
          did not sound quite right. 
          
          Like when the client would 
          earnestly give his answer to a question my father asked, which I 
          considered to be the real answer, and my father would tell him to 
          modify it or simply to keep quiet on a certain point.
          I didn’t like the idea that 
          my father would earn his living for us, a big family of 11 children, 
          by tampering with the truth. I preferred to sell fish in the market 
          than to do that. But I did not know how to confront him.
          Finally, when I gathered 
          enough courage, I asked him about my doubts, and surprisingly he was 
          very happy to engage me with what I considered as a very paternal 
          explanation of his legal profession. My father also had a very tender 
          heart.
          He assured me everything was 
          ethical, and that he was not doing anything wrong just to provide for 
          the family. And then very patiently he told me about what lawyers were 
          supposed to do with their clients, especially those whom my father 
          already suspected or was even sure were guilty of the accusation.
          He told me everyone has to 
          the right to be defended, even the one who is guilty. And the lawyer’s 
          job is to help the client defend himself along the technicalities of a 
          legal trial.
          He told me the lawyers, like 
          everybody else, should not tamper with the truth, but neither is the 
          accused client obliged to incriminate himself. The burden of proof 
          lies on the accuser. The accused is always presumed innocent unless 
          proven otherwise. This is a legal process, my father said, not the 
          Last Judgment before God where absolutely everything would be in the 
          open.
          And so the accused client 
          may not have to say everything that he knows, and when asked directly 
          about something that might incriminate him, he can remain silent, 
          which should not be automatically interpreted as incriminating him.
          I must confess that it took 
          me time before I could feel at ease with this explanation. Even up to 
          now I feel a little discomfort. But I can see the validity of the 
          lawyer’s job to defend his client, however guilty he may be or not.
          Given this predicament, the 
          ideal lawyer should be no less than a saint, otherwise, the temptation 
          to play around with the truth would just be irresistible.