Practice question
A lawyer discovers that a proposed interpretation is being advanced not as an arguable legal position but through deliberate distortion to injure an opposing party unjustly. The client insists payment entitles him to that tactic. Which is sound under the revised oath?
- Payment suspends the oath
- The oath's prohibition on perverting law to unjustly favor or prejudice anyone limits the tactic
- Any client request automatically establishes justice
- The lawyer's only duty is collecting the agreed fee
- The oath permits every tactic if no judge has yet objected
Legal references
- https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/22-09-01-SC-FINAL.pdf — A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC, April 11, 2023, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, Revised Lawyer's Oath.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/jun2023/ac_13630_2023.html — Pante v. Tebelin, A.C. No. 13630, June 27, 2023, EN BANC MAIN decision (Revised Lawyer's Oath).
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/pdf/am_24-10-05-sc_2025.pdf — A.M. No. 24-10-05-SC, August 12, 2025, effective November 3, 2025; amended Rule 138 §§1,6–13,15–19.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.