0% found this document useful (0 votes)

40 views1 page

Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 17

The document discusses three questions regarding a lawyer's ethical duties. For the second question, the author explains that while perjury by a client is wrong, a lawyer does not have to disclose it as long as they advise the client of the pros and cons. For the third question, the duty is similar - the lawyer must advise the client about right and wrong but not judge their actions. The document also agrees with the first question, stating that a lawyer's duty is to defend their client's rights in court as vested in them by the client's trust and confidence.

Uploaded by

Rover Diompoc

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

40 views1 page

Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 17

Uploaded by

Rover Diompoc

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 1

2.

The second question was answered in a technical sense in which it pitted canons
against canons. The author explained that Perjury by the client is wrong but is not
required to be fully disclosed and that as long as the lawyer told the client the pros
and cons of committing a perjury in court then it is not necessary for the lawyer to
reveal such fact. The duty of the lawyer is just to inform the client about the effects of
perjury and that it is the clients decision that would still be considered.

3. The third question was answered almost in the same way as in the second question,
that it is the decision of the client which would be considered and not the lawyers.
The facts stated was that if a client asked for an advice the lawyer would give it, but
what if it would temp the client in committing perjury in his interest? The author
stated that it is not the duty of the lawyer to judge his client on whether the latter
would use such advice to commit perjury. It is the duty of the lawyer however to
inform him about what is wrong and what is right, that the advice given would serve
his interest but would expose him to further examinations and if it was proven that he
has committed perjury then that would prejudice him and would even be the reason
for him being imprisoned.

1) I agree with the author in the first question. It is the responsibility of the lawyer to defend
the rights of his client in court, that the responsibility is vested in them by the confidence
given them by their client. It is by virtue of that confidence that the lawyers moral and
ethically principles should revolve. It is stated that A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him1. The
lawyer has the responsibility to represent his clients interest and that by not doing his
duty in not cross-examining the adverse witness he failed to establish the rights of his
client. It is not duty of the lawyer to prove the credibility of the adverse witness, it is the
duty of the prosecution to prove it.