Legal Profession - Code of Conduct of Lawyers

Introduction

The legal profession appears to be under attack in some parts of the world. Parker writes that Australian lawyers feel they are the "subjects of unprecedented investigation, criticism and attack ." De Groot-Van Leeuwen also writes that "a wide variety of illegal practices of lawyers has been exposed in public" and that, "the number of complaints (per lawyer) is steadily rising. " In fact, he writes that lawyers these days are no longer depicted as "crusaders of justice or enlightened upholders of the law, but as parasites feeding on the misery of others, as servants of the mafia, or as common mortals at best. "

Singapore has not reached this state, and the legal profession here is still highly respected and upheld. However, this may not remain, and there is the possibility that our legal system will follow the same path if the quality of our legal profession is not continually preserved. As such, this paper will focus on the qualities that make a good lawyer, since they determine the quality of our legal profession.

Qualities of Good Lawyers

In the medical profession, doctors take the Hippocratic Oath that sets standards of professionalism in their conduct and performance of duties. Similarly, the legal profession is also held to certain standards, and lawyers are expected to possess certain qualities. Although legal institutions have tried to set up guidelines and regulations, it is very difficult to have ‘hard and fast rules' on such grey areas, and there are myriad ways of interpreting what qualities a good lawyer should embody.

It is pertinent that a lawyer should possess certain essential qualities such as a "strong understanding of legal doctrine and principles". Additionally, a good lawyer should be able to apply and develop the law with respect to each society's unique culture and values. These are qualities relating to the technical application of the law and we concur that such foundations are critical factors all lawyers should possess.

This can be exemplified by the case of Law Society of Singapore v Tay Eng Kwee Edwin . The accused had flaunted the SA Rules by failing to maintain the mandated bookkeeping. Furthermore, he made no effort to mitigate his actions apart from one solitary email. Although there was no dishonesty on the accused's part, his conduct was perceived to be below the required standards expected of a professional, and he was struck off the roll.

Most importantly, a lawyer should complement his knowledge with a firm set of ethics. As advocates of the law, lawyers should uphold stringent standards of morality as well as be able to exercise good judgment and retain integrity. These qualities may seem easy to determine on the surface, but in reality, lawyers often "hold strongly opposing views on what is proper conduct in legal practice ". One example is the conflicting roles of a lawyer, one view: that "[a] suspect has a right to expect that his lawyer uses every means to defend him"; and the other: that the "means that lawyers employ for the defence of their clients should be constrained by wider responsibilities". In the case of Law Society of Singapore v Chen Kok Siang Joseph , the accused posed as a friend of his client in order to interview him after repeatedly being turned down by prison authorities. This resulted in a 4 year suspension from the Bar being imposed upon discovery.

Here, it is imperative to note that the accused in this case had resorted to this unorthodox method of gaining entry into prison to interview his client only after repeated failures to secure the permission of such an interview from the prison authorities. It is thus arguable that the accused actions were fueled by the desire to aid his client, yet a more convincing argument would be that he was fulfilling his own agenda, which one may speculate as to perhaps making a name for himself as a lawyer who would go above and beyond to assist his client, which would in turn reap fiscal benefits for himself. However, this undermines both the system of justice (viz, the prison system), as well as the image of the legal profession, wider responsibilities lawyers cannot ignore.
Another duty a lawyer has is not to exploit a client's trust. When a lawyer uses his position of trust to manipulate a client for his own purposes, he promotes and serves his own interests at expense of the objective representation of the client. This also results in a conflict of interest as the lawyer's fiduciary duty to the client is compromised. The Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1997 Ed) censures such inappropriate behaviour through sections 83(1) and 83(2)(b). Especially in cases involving vulnerable clients, the misguided belief that the lawyer is acting is her best interests can affect the client's ability to make informed, voluntary choices. The case of Law Society of Singapore v Singham Dennis Mahendran is one such instance where the accused had sexual relations with a client he was representing in a divorce matter and was thus suspended from the bar for 3 years. CJ Yong Pung How stated in judgment for the case, that there was a public interest to be served in that vulnerable female clients who deal with male solicitors must be protected from inappropriate advances, which male solicitors may be tempted to make. He also said that it was important the public retained confidence in the legal profession's standards of professionalism in their work.
Such a viewpoint is shared not only domestically but also held by the international legal community. In the UK, it is clearly defined that "(s)olicitors can also act as mediators between parties in family matters…" and a "mediator's role…not to impose a solution." It is also recognized that "(n)ormally the solicitor will be in the more powerful position…risk that the help or advice given… influenced by prospect of sexual favours." When applied to the case, it becomes obvious where the accused strayed from the conduct of a professional.
Regardless, a total ban on lawyer-client sexual relationships takes the freedom of association away from both the lawyer and the client. An alternative method of dealing with the issue is illustrated with California Rule 3-120 which "prohibits an attorney from using "coercion, intimidation or undue influence" to begin a sexual relationship with a client. Such a rule, which acknowledges that some consensual sexual relationships are free from dangerous exploitation, is more logical and fairer than the current rulings that presuppose an invidious character in all lawyer-client sexual relationships.