ASG Law

Tag: Rehabilitation

  • Rehabilitation and Reintegration: The Court’s Role in Juvenile Offender Cases

    In People v. Candelario and Legarda, the Supreme Court addressed the process for reintegrating youthful offenders back into society after rehabilitation. The Court clarified that while the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) plays a crucial role in rehabilitating juvenile offenders, the final decision regarding their release and reintegration rests with the trial court. This ensures a judicial review of the DSWD’s recommendation, balancing the offender’s progress with public safety and the fulfillment of any civil liabilities. The case underscores the importance of a holistic approach to juvenile justice, emphasizing rehabilitation, accountability, and judicial oversight.

    From Conviction to Rehabilitation: Who Decides a Youthful Offender’s Fate?

    The case stemmed from the conviction of Ludigario Candelario and Gerry Legarda for Robbery with Multiple Rape. While Candelario faced the death penalty, Legarda, being a youthful offender, was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Following the finality of the decision, the DSWD submitted a Final Report, highlighting Legarda’s positive progress and recommending his transfer to his father’s custody. This prompted the Supreme Court to examine the proper procedure for handling such recommendations, especially concerning youthful offenders who have undergone rehabilitation.

    The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of Presidential Decree No. 603, also known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, particularly Article 196, which discusses the dismissal of a case against a youthful offender. The DSWD’s recommendation for dismissal and discharge raised the question: Does a favorable report from the DSWD automatically warrant the release of a youthful offender? The Supreme Court, drawing from its previous ruling in People v. Ricky Galit, et al., clarified the roles of the DSWD and the trial court in these situations.

    In People v. Galit, the Court emphasized that it is not the sole responsibility of the Supreme Court to order the release of an accused without a review of the DSWD’s recommendation by the trial court. The High Court cited Article 196 of P.D. 603, which states:

    “Art. 196. Dismissal of the case. – If it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the youthful offender whose sentence has been suspended, has behaved properly and has shown his capability to be a useful member of the community, even before reaching the age of majority, upon recommendation of the Department of Social Welfare, it shall dismiss the case and order his final discharge.”

    Building on this principle, the Court in People v. Candelario and Legarda reiterated that the trial court plays a crucial role in reviewing the DSWD’s recommendation. This review ensures that the court independently assesses whether the youthful offender has indeed been rehabilitated and is prepared to reintegrate into society. The court’s assessment should not be based solely on the DSWD’s conclusions but should involve a thorough examination of concrete, material, and relevant facts.

    The Court’s reasoning underscores the importance of judicial oversight in cases involving youthful offenders. While the DSWD’s expertise in rehabilitation is valuable, the trial court serves as a safeguard, ensuring that the offender’s release aligns with the interests of justice and public safety. This approach contrasts with a purely administrative process, where the DSWD’s recommendation would be automatically implemented without judicial scrutiny.

    The decision highlights the delicate balance between rehabilitation and accountability. While the law aims to provide youthful offenders with opportunities for reform, it also recognizes the need to protect society from potential harm. The trial court’s review process ensures that both of these considerations are taken into account before a youthful offender is released. The court also gives consideration to the youthful offenders civil liabilities that may have been incurred by the reason of his conviction.

    The practical implications of this ruling are significant. It clarifies the procedure for handling DSWD recommendations for the release of youthful offenders, ensuring that trial courts play an active role in the decision-making process. This provides a layer of protection for the community, as the court can independently assess the offender’s readiness for reintegration. The ruling also reinforces the importance of comprehensive rehabilitation programs that address the offender’s intellectual, physical, moral, and emotional well-being, as demonstrated by Legarda’s progress in the DSWD’s care.

    The importance of due process and judicial review in cases involving youthful offenders cannot be overstated. By requiring trial courts to independently assess the DSWD’s recommendations, the Supreme Court safeguards against arbitrary or premature release. This process ensures that the offender’s progress is carefully evaluated, and that any potential risks to public safety are properly addressed. The review of concrete facts as mandated by the court, is also essential. The court will need to consider the totality of circumstances that will lead to a conviction.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was determining the proper procedure for releasing a youthful offender after the DSWD recommends their discharge following a period of rehabilitation.
    What did the DSWD recommend? The DSWD submitted a Final Report recommending that Gerry Legarda, a youthful offender, be released from their custody and transferred to his father’s care due to his positive rehabilitation progress.
    What did the Supreme Court decide? The Supreme Court directed the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City to review the DSWD’s recommendation and make its own judgment on whether Legarda should be released.
    Why didn’t the Supreme Court directly order Legarda’s release? The Court emphasized that it is the trial court’s responsibility to review the DSWD’s recommendation and ensure that the offender has been genuinely rehabilitated.
    What is the role of the trial court in these cases? The trial court must independently assess the DSWD’s recommendation, examining concrete facts to determine if the youthful offender is truly ready to reintegrate into society.
    What legal provision is central to this case? Article 196 of Presidential Decree No. 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code), which outlines the process for dismissing a case against a rehabilitated youthful offender.
    What was the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision? The Court relied on its previous ruling in People v. Ricky Galit, et al., which clarified the roles of the DSWD and the trial court in these matters.
    What is the practical implication of this ruling? The practical implication is that trial courts have the final say in releasing youthful offenders, ensuring a balance between rehabilitation and public safety.

    In conclusion, People v. Candelario and Legarda reinforces the importance of judicial oversight in the reintegration of youthful offenders. The decision ensures that rehabilitation efforts are properly assessed and that the community’s safety remains a paramount concern. By clarifying the roles of the DSWD and the trial court, the Supreme Court has provided a clear framework for handling these sensitive cases, promoting both justice and the well-being of youthful offenders.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. LUDIGARIO CANDELARIO AND GERRY LEGARDA, G.R. No. 125550, July 11, 2000

  • Rehabilitation vs. Liquidation: Resuming Operations After Legislative Mandate

    When a law mandates the rehabilitation of a bank undergoing liquidation, the liquidation proceedings must cease. The Supreme Court in Philippine Veterans Bank Employees Union-N.U.B.E. vs. Hon. Benjamin Vega, ruled that Republic Act No. 7169, which ordered the rehabilitation of the Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB), effectively halted the ongoing liquidation process. This decision underscores the principle that a legislative directive for rehabilitation overrides prior liquidation orders, allowing the bank to resume operations and serve its intended purpose.

    Can a Liquidation Court Continue Proceedings After Congress Orders Rehabilitation?

    The Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB) faced liquidation proceedings initiated by the Central Bank of the Philippines. During these proceedings, the Philippine Veterans Bank Employees Union-N.U.B.E., representing the bank’s employees, filed claims for unpaid wages and benefits. However, before all claims could be fully addressed, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 7169, which mandated the rehabilitation and reopening of PVB. Despite this legislative directive, the liquidation court continued its proceedings, prompting the union to file a petition arguing that the court’s authority had been superseded by the new law. The central legal question was whether the enactment of R.A. 7169 effectively terminated the liquidation proceedings, given the clear legislative intent to rehabilitate the bank.

    The Supreme Court addressed the core issue of whether the liquidation court could continue its proceedings despite the enactment of R.A. 7169. The court emphasized that R.A. 7169 explicitly provided for the rehabilitation of the Philippine Veterans Bank. The law mandated the reopening of the bank and established a rehabilitation committee to oversee this process. Section 10 of R.A. No. 7169 stipulates that the law takes effect upon its approval, indicating the legislature’s intent for immediate implementation.

    Sec. 10. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

    Building on this principle, the Court highlighted the fundamental conflict between liquidation and rehabilitation. Liquidation, in essence, involves winding up a corporation by settling debts and distributing assets. Rehabilitation, conversely, seeks to restore a corporation to its former state of solvency and successful operation. The Supreme Court quoted Wilson vs. Superior Court in and for Santa Clara County, defining liquidation as winding up or settling with creditors and debtors. Rehabilitation contemplates a continuance of corporate life and activities in an effort to restore and reinstate the corporation to its former position of successful operation and solvency as cited in Ruby Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 445 (1998).

    The Court stated that the concept of liquidation is diametrically opposed or contrary to the concept of rehabilitation, such that both cannot be undertaken at the same time. To allow the liquidation proceedings to continue would seriously hinder the rehabilitation of the subject bank. Given this inherent conflict, the Court concluded that the enactment of R.A. 7169 rendered the liquidation court functus officio, meaning it no longer had the authority to issue orders related to the liquidation. The legislative mandate for rehabilitation took precedence, effectively stripping the court of its jurisdiction over the liquidation proceedings.

    The respondents, including the Central Bank and the liquidator of PVB, argued that R.A. No. 7169 only became effective fifteen days after its publication in the Official Gazette. Intervenors also contended that the law’s effectivity was contingent on the Monetary Board’s approval of a rehabilitation plan. However, the Supreme Court rejected these arguments, citing Section 10 of R.A. No. 7169. The court emphasized that the legislature clearly intended for the law to take effect immediately upon its approval on January 2, 1992. Even if publication were necessary, the Court noted that the law became effective on February 24, 1992, when it was published in the Official Gazette.

    Therefore, the Supreme Court definitively ruled that the liquidation proceedings could not continue after the enactment of R.A. 7169. The Court recognized the law’s immediate effectivity and the irreconcilable conflict between liquidation and rehabilitation. This decision reinforced the principle that a legislative mandate for rehabilitation overrides prior liquidation orders, enabling the bank to resume operations. The Supreme Court granted the petition, permanently enjoining the respondent judge from further proceeding with the liquidation case.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a liquidation court could continue proceedings after Congress enacted a law mandating the rehabilitation and reopening of the Philippine Veterans Bank.
    What is the meaning of functus officio? Functus officio means that the court no longer has the authority or jurisdiction to act on a matter because its original function or mandate has been completed or superseded.
    What is the difference between liquidation and rehabilitation? Liquidation involves winding up a corporation by settling debts and distributing assets, while rehabilitation seeks to restore the corporation to solvency and successful operation. The Supreme Court defined liquidation as winding up or settling with creditors and debtors. Rehabilitation contemplates a continuance of corporate life and activities in an effort to restore and reinstate the corporation to its former position of successful operation and solvency.
    When did R.A. 7169 take effect? R.A. 7169 took effect on January 2, 1992, the date it was signed into law by President Corazon C. Aquino, as explicitly stated in Section 10 of the Act.
    Why did the Supreme Court stop the liquidation proceedings? The Supreme Court stopped the liquidation proceedings because R.A. 7169 mandated the rehabilitation of the Philippine Veterans Bank, and liquidation and rehabilitation cannot occur simultaneously.
    What was the effect of R.A. 7169 on the liquidation court’s authority? R.A. 7169 rendered the liquidation court functus officio, stripping it of the authority to issue orders involving acts of liquidation.
    Did the Central Bank’s arguments against the effectivity of R.A. 7169 succeed? No, the Supreme Court rejected the Central Bank’s arguments, affirming that R.A. 7169 took effect immediately upon its approval.
    What was the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision? The Supreme Court granted the petition and permanently enjoined the respondent judge from further proceeding with the liquidation case.

    This case underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding legislative intent, especially when it comes to laws designed to rehabilitate struggling institutions. The decision ensures that legislative mandates are not undermined by conflicting judicial proceedings, allowing for the intended rehabilitation to proceed unimpeded.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK EMPLOYEES UNION-N.U.B.E. VS. HONORABLE BENJAMIN VEGA, G.R. No. 105364, June 28, 2001

  • Moral Character and Admission to the Bar: Overcoming Past Misdeeds

    Redemption and the Legal Profession: Can Past Mistakes Bar Future Lawyers?

    Can a person who committed a serious crime in their youth still become a lawyer? This case explores the delicate balance between past transgressions and the potential for rehabilitation in the context of admission to the legal profession. It emphasizes that while past actions are considered, evidence of genuine remorse, reform, and a commitment to ethical conduct can pave the way for a second chance. The case serves as a reminder that moral character is not static but can evolve through personal growth and dedication to the principles of justice.

    BAR MATTER No. 810, January 27, 1998

    Introduction

    Imagine a young person, once involved in a tragic incident, now yearning to serve justice as a lawyer. This is the story of Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr., whose journey to the bar was complicated by a past conviction for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. His case raises a fundamental question: Can a person who has made serious mistakes in the past demonstrate sufficient moral rehabilitation to be entrusted with the responsibilities of a lawyer?

    Cuevas, a bar exam passer, faced an obstacle to his oath-taking due to his involvement in a fraternity hazing incident that led to the death of a neophyte. The Supreme Court had to consider whether his subsequent actions, including his discharge from probation and testimonials of good character, were enough to outweigh the gravity of his past offense. This case underscores the importance of moral character in the legal profession and the possibility of redemption.

    Legal Context: Moral Character and Admission to the Bar

    In the Philippines, admission to the bar is not merely about passing an exam; it’s about demonstrating moral fitness to practice law. The Supreme Court has consistently held that lawyers must be individuals of good moral character, as they are officers of the court and play a vital role in the administration of justice. This requirement is rooted in the nature of the profession, which demands integrity, honesty, and trustworthiness.

    The Rules of Court explicitly state the qualifications for admission to the bar, including good moral character. While the Rules do not define moral character, jurisprudence has established that it encompasses traits such as honesty, fairness, and respect for the law. The lack of good moral character can be grounds for denying admission to the bar, even if an applicant has passed the bar examinations.

    The Supreme Court has the inherent power to determine who may be admitted to the bar and to regulate the practice of law. This power includes the authority to investigate the moral character of bar applicants and to deny admission to those who do not meet the required standards. The Court’s role is to ensure that only those who possess the necessary moral qualities are allowed to practice law.

    Relevant provisions include:

    Rule 138, Section 2 of the Rules of Court states: “Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines…”

    Case Breakdown: Arthur Cuevas’ Path to Redemption

    The story of Arthur Cuevas is a testament to the possibility of redemption. Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

    • 1991: Cuevas participated in fraternity initiation rites where a neophyte, Raul I. Camaligan, died due to inflicted violence.
    • Conviction: Cuevas was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and was granted probation.
    • 1995: He was discharged from probation, and his case was closed.
    • 1996: Cuevas passed the Bar Examinations, but his oath-taking was held in abeyance.
    • 1997: Cuevas petitioned the Court to allow him to take his lawyer’s oath, submitting certifications attesting to his good character.
    • The Court’s Dilemma: The Supreme Court had to weigh the gravity of Cuevas’ past actions against his efforts to reform and demonstrate good moral character.

    Atty. Gilbert D. Camaligan, the father of the deceased, expressed his pain but acknowledged he couldn’t definitively say whether Cuevas had become morally fit. He submitted the matter to the Court’s discretion.

    The Court acknowledged the seriousness of Cuevas’ past actions, stating, “His deliberate participation in the senseless beatings over a helpless neophyte which resulted to the latter’s untimely demise indicates absence of that moral fitness required for admission to the bar.”

    However, the Court also considered the positive changes in Cuevas’ life after the incident. The Court noted that Cuevas’ discharge from probation and the certifications attesting to his good character suggested he had taken steps to atone for his past actions.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court resolved to allow Cuevas to take the lawyer’s oath, giving him the benefit of the doubt. The Court emphasized that the lawyer’s oath is not a mere formality and exhorted Cuevas to conduct himself beyond reproach, adhering strictly to his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    Practical Implications: Second Chances in the Legal Profession

    This case offers important lessons for individuals seeking admission to the bar with a history of past mistakes. It highlights the possibility of redemption and the factors that the Supreme Court considers in such cases.

    For aspiring lawyers with a checkered past, this case serves as a beacon of hope, demonstrating that the Supreme Court is willing to consider evidence of rehabilitation and good moral character. However, it also underscores the importance of taking responsibility for past actions and demonstrating a genuine commitment to ethical conduct.

    For the legal profession as a whole, the case reinforces the importance of moral character in the practice of law and the need to maintain high ethical standards. It also highlights the Court’s role in ensuring that only those who possess the necessary moral qualities are allowed to join the ranks of lawyers.

    Key Lessons:

    • Rehabilitation is Possible: Demonstrating genuine remorse and taking concrete steps to reform can outweigh past mistakes.
    • Moral Character Matters: The legal profession demands high ethical standards, and moral character is a crucial requirement for admission to the bar.
    • Transparency is Key: Disclose any past transgressions and provide evidence of rehabilitation to the Court.
    • Live Ethically: Once admitted, adhere strictly to the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What factors does the Supreme Court consider when evaluating the moral character of a bar applicant with a criminal record?

    A: The Court considers the nature and seriousness of the crime, the applicant’s subsequent conduct, evidence of rehabilitation, and testimonials from credible sources.

    Q: Can a person convicted of a serious crime ever be admitted to the bar?

    A: It is possible, but it depends on the specific circumstances of the case and the extent to which the applicant has demonstrated genuine remorse and rehabilitation.

    Q: What is the significance of a discharge from probation in these cases?

    A: A discharge from probation is considered favorable, as it indicates that the applicant has complied with the conditions of probation and has demonstrated good behavior during that period.

    Q: What kind of evidence can an applicant submit to demonstrate good moral character?

    A: Applicants can submit certifications from community leaders, religious figures, employers, and other individuals who can attest to their good character and reputation.

    Q: Is there a specific time period that must pass before a person with a criminal record can apply to the bar?

    A: There is no set time period. The Court will consider the totality of the circumstances, including the time that has passed since the commission of the crime and the applicant’s subsequent conduct.

    Q: What should an applicant do if they have a criminal record and want to apply to the bar?

    A: Be transparent, disclose the criminal record, and gather as much evidence as possible to demonstrate good moral character and rehabilitation.

    ASG Law specializes in criminal law and legal ethics. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Moral Character and Admission to the Bar: Second Chances in Philippine Law

    Rehabilitation and Moral Fitness: Can Past Transgressions Bar You From Practicing Law?

    BAR MATTER No. 712, March 19, 1997

    The legal profession demands not only intellectual prowess but also impeccable moral character. But what happens when an aspiring lawyer has a past transgression? Can they overcome this hurdle and be admitted to the bar? This case explores the complexities of assessing moral fitness and the possibility of rehabilitation for those seeking to join the legal profession. It highlights that while past actions are considered, the court also values remorse, atonement, and demonstrated commitment to ethical conduct.

    The Weight of the Past: Moral Character in Legal Admission

    In the Philippines, admission to the bar is not merely about passing the bar exams. It requires demonstrating good moral character, a standard enshrined in the Rules of Court. Rule 138, Section 2 states that “Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines”. This requirement is intended to ensure that those who wield the power of the law are individuals of integrity and sound ethical judgment.

    The concept of “good moral character” is broad and often assessed on a case-by-case basis. It encompasses honesty, fairness, respect for the law, and a commitment to ethical conduct. A criminal conviction, particularly for a serious offense, can raise significant concerns about an applicant’s moral fitness. However, the Supreme Court recognizes that people can change, and past mistakes do not necessarily disqualify someone from practicing law forever.

    For example, imagine a student convicted of theft in college. Years later, after earning a law degree, the student applies to the bar. The court will consider the nature of the offense, the circumstances surrounding it, the applicant’s subsequent conduct, and evidence of rehabilitation in determining whether the applicant now possesses the requisite moral character.

    The Argosino Case: A Second Chance?

    This case revolves around Al Caparros Argosino, who passed the bar examinations in 1993. However, his oath-taking was deferred due to a prior conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. The conviction stemmed from the death of a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites in 1991. Argosino and seven others initially pleaded not guilty but later changed their pleas to guilty of the lesser offense.

    The trial court sentenced Argosino to imprisonment, but he was later granted probation. After successfully completing his probation, Argosino petitioned the Supreme Court to be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.

    • Argosino passed the bar but was initially barred due to the criminal conviction.
    • He submitted evidence of rehabilitation, including certifications from respected figures.
    • The father of the victim, Atty. Camaligan, expressed forgiveness but remained uncertain about Argosino’s moral fitness.

    The Supreme Court acknowledged the gravity of Argosino’s past actions but also considered evidence of his remorse, efforts to atone for his actions, and the support he received from various individuals. The Court also noted Atty. Camaligan’s forgiveness, despite his understandable pain and reservations. In its deliberation, the Court stated:

    “x x x participation in the prolonged and mindless physical behavior, [which] makes impossible a finding that the participant [herein petitioner] was then possessed of good moral character.”

    However, it also noted that it was prepared to consider de novo whether the petitioner had purged himself of the deficiency in moral character.

    Ultimately, the Court allowed Argosino to take the lawyer’s oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys, and practice law, subject to a stern admonition. The Court emphasized that the lawyer’s oath is not a mere formality but a solemn promise that should guide a lawyer’s conduct at all times.

    “In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer’s oath, the Court recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber…The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. We are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt…”

    Practical Implications and Lessons Learned

    This case underscores the importance of moral character in the legal profession and offers hope for individuals who have made mistakes in the past. It demonstrates that rehabilitation is possible and that the Supreme Court is willing to consider evidence of remorse, atonement, and a commitment to ethical conduct.

    Imagine a paralegal with a prior conviction for a minor drug offense. After years of working diligently, earning a law degree, and demonstrating a commitment to community service, the paralegal applies to the bar. This case suggests that the paralegal’s past offense would not automatically disqualify them, and the Court would consider their subsequent rehabilitation and contributions to society.

    Key Lessons:

    • Past mistakes do not automatically disqualify someone from practicing law.
    • Evidence of remorse, atonement, and rehabilitation is crucial.
    • The Supreme Court assesses moral character on a case-by-case basis.
    • The lawyer’s oath is a solemn promise that should guide a lawyer’s conduct.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What is considered “good moral character” for admission to the bar?

    A: Good moral character encompasses honesty, fairness, respect for the law, and a commitment to ethical conduct. It is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

    Q: Can a criminal conviction prevent someone from becoming a lawyer?

    A: A criminal conviction can raise concerns about an applicant’s moral fitness, but it does not automatically disqualify them. The Court considers the nature of the offense, the circumstances surrounding it, the applicant’s subsequent conduct, and evidence of rehabilitation.

    Q: What evidence can be presented to demonstrate rehabilitation?

    A: Evidence of rehabilitation can include certifications from respected figures, community service, academic achievements, and a demonstrated commitment to ethical conduct.

    Q: How does the Court weigh the victim’s forgiveness in these cases?

    A: The Court considers the victim’s forgiveness as a positive factor, but it is not determinative. The Court still assesses the applicant’s overall moral fitness based on all available evidence.

    Q: What is the significance of the lawyer’s oath?

    A: The lawyer’s oath is a solemn promise that should guide a lawyer’s conduct at all times. It is a reminder of the ethical obligations and responsibilities that come with practicing law.

    Q: What happens if a lawyer violates the lawyer’s oath?

    A: Violation of the lawyer’s oath can result in disciplinary actions, including suspension or disbarment.

    ASG Law specializes in legal ethics and professional responsibility. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.