1

Name: Remus Ceasar S. Calicdan Jr.

A CRITIQUE ON CLIENT CENTERED COUNSELING AND MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR LAWYERS

Introduction
The traditional occupation of being a lawyer has always been viewed by the populace as a one-sided
relationship wherein the attorney as counsel to his client, would be the one in charge, the one painted with
authority to decide what is best for the client. This often would degrade the client to somewhat of a bystander,
devoid of opinion, unable to truly show what he or she wants for himself in the coming strenuous and expensive
legal battle ahead.

As better termed by Robert Bastress in his views on client centered counseling, “Many lawyers view their
role in the attorney-client relationship as that of a paternalistic captain charting and asserting his solution to the
client’s problems”1. In his words, the attorney dominates the client. To add to Bastress’ point, one value or trait
that is prevalent among Filipinos is that they would always try get along with someone, this term is coined as
the concept of “Pakikisama”2 which was considered essential to our character in order to reach a compromise
with how we deal with certain individuals in order to maintain a harmonious relationship.

With the “Pakikisama” trait still in effect among majority of Filipinos, It is not a far off chance that
whenever a client feels a conflict of relationship between him and his counsel, the client, instead of sharing his
actual interests and priorities as to the outcome of his case, would now rely solely to the legal strategies brought
forth by the Attorney. This mentality in the mind of the Attorney however, in exerting his authority and expertise
over his client could be interpreted as the counsel merely following one of the canons provided for in the Code
of Professional Responsibility, particularly, Canon 19, Rule 19.03 which provides that a lawyer shall not allow his
client to dictate the procedure in handling the case3.

Should the Amoral Adversarial Model be replaced with a Client Centered Model?
Robert Bastress has made the observation that as history progresses, Attorney-client relationships has
always followed the amoral adversarial model, wherein attorney’s, despite of their reservations and views on
the case of a client, must zealously represent them. That at times, a lawyer must sacrifice his or her personal
feelings for the benefit of society and the client. 4 However, Bastress sees this as an obsolete method of legal
counseling as it presents more problems than solutions. On one point, the amoral adversarial system hinders
the actualization of a more prosperous settlement for his clients as the lack of rapport between counsel and
client results to a large portion of information withheld from the counsel to fully operate in his client’s interests
and lastly, it invokes an impression that attorneys only partake the nature of counsel for reasons of personal

1
Bastress, Robert. Client Centered Counseling and Moral Accountability for Lawyers. Pg. 97
2
F. Landa Jocano. Developing a Filipino Corporate Culture: Uses of Filipino Traditional Structures in Modern Management.
3
Canon 19, Code of Professional Responsibility. June 21, 1998
4
Bastress, Robert. Client Centered Counseling and Moral Accountability for Lawyers. Pg. 104
 2

gain. Hence, a more client centered model should be given more attention and should be the prime guide on
how future attorneys should act.

I disagree with this notion of Bastress that the amoral adversarial model should be replaced with a client
centered one. The essence of amorality is better summarized by the famous words “The ends justifies the
means”. One must not allow his personal reservations to cloud his judgement in order for the greater good to
prevail. With this I relate it to the Philippine setting of legal counseling.

As provided for in the case of Claudio v. Subido, the Supreme Court held that the duty of a lawyer towards
his client is invested with public interest5. As a public interest, lawyers are mandated under the law to ensure
that right and justice shall prevail. To represent the client, whether he be guilty or not is a mandate not to be
taken lightly by the counsel. As Professor Edgardo Villareal stated in his book on legal profession, the first and
foremost duty of a lawyer is to advocate for the proper administration of justice as the society has delegated to
the legal profession.6 This shows that the duty of a lawyer, is not merely one based on mandate by law but also
a delegation of authority by society to further improve the ends of the law which is for right and justice to prevail.

To argue that the Attorney must have more moral independence on a potential case he takes, will open
the floodgates on attorneys to merely pass on important cases by reason of their moral, social, and economic
biases. Even Bastress posits that moral independence with a subjective standard may simply cause lawyers to
change rationales. As provided under Canon 14, A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy, furthermore,
as provided under Rule 14.01 of the same canon, A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on
account of the latter’s race, sex, creed, or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said
person.

This instance of moral independence would then render the laws imposing a duty and obligation on the
part of the counsel as void and nugatory. The risks of completely abandoning the amoral adversarial system of
legal counseling greatly outweigh its benefits as Bastress would argue. Ultimately it would result to contravene
the constitutional mandate that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law as those who are already disadvantaged by societal perception such as suspects in crimes, the less fortunate
who does not have the means to hire a competent attorney, or people who are wrongfully convicted are left to
fend for themselves as counsels may skirt their duties in representing them by reason of moral biases.

To Improve, Not Necessarily to Abandon

5
Claudio v. Subido, 40 SCRA 481
6
Villareal, Edgardo. II. Legal Profession. Pg.82
 3

While the old tradition of an amoral adversarial system cannot be abandoned, it does not necessarily
limit itself to be immune from improvements. It is with this view that it is better to think of the two models as
two sides of the same coin. From the point of Bastress, the essential element that is lacking from the old method
is that it lacks trust in general. Trust between the client and the attorney handling his case. To note, according
to Wade and Robison, Trust is not merely a behavior or a one off decision. It is an underlying psychological state,
which is informed by both our emotions and our cognitive mental processes. Trust then implies a willingness of
the trustor to be vulnerable and that it involves a positive expectation in the trustee. 7

Under a client centered model, the establishment of trust between the client and the counsel is the main
goal as the lawyer strives not to be the imposer of options to the client but someone who guides the client to
the best options available to him. A lawyer-client relationship founded on mutual trust and candor increases the
likelihood that the relationship will render a just and fair result. This mutual trust according to Bastress benefits
both parties as it allows the attorney to better prepare for his arguments and it also allows the client to freely
communicate his needs and the remedies he wants to be applied.

I agree on this point from Bastress as essentially, the Code of Professional Responsibility provided for an
entire Canon putting emphasis on the concept of trust in the field of legal counseling. As provided under Canon
15, A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.
Furthermore, Rule 15.05 provides that a lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and an honest
opinion on the merits and probable results of the client’s case, neither overstating nor understating the
prospects of the case.8

Again, the essential job of an attorney is to ensure right and justice to prevail. A purely amoral adversarial
system cannot achieve this goal. Counsels cannot merely represent a client by virtue of a duty they are imposed
by the law. Absent the voice of the client, the end result of litigation would always be a pyrrhic victory. No one
wins or gets satisfied truly, and justice is yet to be served. One such concrete example wherein a client centered
approach merged with the amoral adversarial system is applicable is the Witness Protection Program under
Republic Act No. 6981. Wherein it seeks to encourage a person who has just witnessed or has knowledge of the
commission of a crime to testify before a court, by protecting him from reprisals and from economic dislocation. 9
In these cases, the relationship between the counsel and the witness trying to testify is particularly essential as
the prosecution, without the witness, cannot make his case and at the same time, the witness or the client,
cannot obtain the protection of the state if he does not cooperate with the prosecutors.

Another example where the two concepts are applied are separation proceedings 10, declaration of nullity
of marriage proceedings11, and cases on support 12. In these cases, a lawyer must be detach himself from his
biases on either the client he is representing or the current situation of the parties under litigation, and at the
same time, the attorney must ensure that he and his client are on the same pace, lest the end result of these

7
Wade, Lydia & Robison, Rosie. The psychology of Trust and its relation to sustainability. 2012.
8
Canon 15, Code of Professional Responsibility. June 21, 1998
9
Republic Act No. 6981. April 24, 1991
10
Article 55, Executive Order No. 209. August 03, 1988
11
Article 35, Executive Order No. 209. August 03, 1988
12
Articles 195-196, Executive Order No. 209. August 03, 1988
 4

proceedings would lead to injustice such as losing custody of children, or even forever estranging the
relationship of the spouses they represent.

Conclusion
From the above provisions and interpretations on the role of a counsel to his client, it can be gleaned
upon that their relationship is not merely as simple as black and white. Legal counseling and the legal profession
will always have different schools of thought on how it is to be applied. On one hand, we have the traditional
method where amorality as a rule is pre-requisite in the practice of the law, on the other we have a paradigm
shift wherein, the role of lawyer is not only confined to what the law demands, but also takes into consideration
their moral preferences.

The article showed two sides of a different case, however these two methods are sides of the same coin.
An attorney, although mandated by law to fulfill the directives of a public servant and as such is required to be
impartial, unbiased, and unrelenting, is recognized to also have a sense of liberality in taking morality as a factor
in taking cases or handling them, this is evident under Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
wherein a lawyer may withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances such as when the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the
matter the attorney is handling or when the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of the canons
of professional responsibility.13

On the other hand, even an Attorney is given liberality as to his preference of cases, it is important that
he be reminded of the solemn duty he undertook, when he was admitted to the BAR. That he uphold the
Constitution and the canons written under the code of professional responsibility. An attorney must not evade
his duty by reason of his moral biases alone. He must remember that first and foremost, he is an agent of his
client, and therefore must be vigilant and attentive of the rights of his clients and to those who he might
represent in the future.

13
Canon 22, Code of Professional Responsibility. June 21, 1998.
 5

REFERENCES:

• The Family Code of the Philippines, Executive Order No. 209. August 03, 1988
• The Code of Professional Responsibility. June 21, 1998
• The Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act, Republic Act No. 6981. April 24, 1991
• Bastress, R. M. (n.d.). Client Centered Counseling and Moral Accountability for Lawyers. Journal of the
Legal Profession.
• Goodwill, Lydia & Robison, Rosie. (2016). The psychology of trust and its relation to sustainability
(Briefing note 2; 2012).. 10.13140/RG.2.1.4786.6484.
• Kritzer, H. M. (1984). The dimensions of lawyer-client relations: Notes toward a theory and a field study.
American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 9(2), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-
4469.1984.tb01052.x
• F. Landa Jocano (1999). Developing a Filipino corporate culture: uses of Filipino traditional structures and
values in modern management, PUNLAD Research House, Towards 1985 Filipino Value System: A cultural
definition, Philippines, Punland Research House
• Villareal, E. M. (2002). Legal profession. Published and distributed by Rex Book Store.