Lawyers and judges

Consider This Jesus Elbinias, MB
Lawyers and judges      IT should not be a surprise that the Social Weather Station survey reported that almost half of the country’s lawyers know of judges that are accepting bribes. Survey results in the past have shown that graft has been going on among the judges with no end to it. The lawyers interviewed in the surveys gave the SWS 11 main reasons why so. Among those reasons are the difficulty of proof, fear of reprisal, nothing would be done. it’s a "standard practice," whistle blowing on it entails much expenses in the ensuing legal battle, not knowing where to report to, not being involved in the matter is not their personal concern, etc. But what’s unethical is to include bribe money in charging fees to clients, on grounds that to win a case, grease money has to change hands. * * * The lawyers’ method of greasing the judge’s hands to win their cases for the clients is not a justifiable advocacy and ethical practice in the practice of law. One of the two protagonists in a court battle will certainly be the winner and other the loser. The two cannot be both winners nor both losers. If this happens, then the result of a court litigation will be decided not by law, facts, and trial skill of the lawyers, but by the highest bidder, meaning the lawyer who has handed the biggest grease money to the judge. In the process of adding the grease money to top that of the opponent, the judge will be compensated to decide the case not through judicial process based on law and facts but on that of auction favoring the higher bidder. Clearly, such judge’s decision is for sale. * * * If judges are perceived to be corrupt, as found through some surveys conducted by the Social Weather Station, this should be ascribed to the kind of lawyers we have today. Why should a lawyer give grease money to the judge to win his case if he has the law and facts as legal weapons for use in the court battle to defeat his opposing lawyer, unless he does not know or have no experience to use them. But by resorting to logical legal technicalities in applying the law, such that even if he does not have those weapons to win the case, he may yet be able to neutralize or diminish the loss that the client may have to bear legally. If that still does not work, with his experience and skill in court advocacy, the lawyer may use compromise or mediation to limit the client’s loss. * * * The final analysis here is that corruption in the judiciary remains as the status quo unless our present lawyers will be well immersed in the knowledge of the law and more so well trained and experienced in trying cases in court. In fact for the judiciary not to be corrupt, the lawyers should be better prepared than the judges in all aspects of the judicial career. One reason judges are prone to be corrupt is they believe they know better than the lawyers appearing in their court. Of course many of them are truly as the way they think and act. During the interaction between the judges and the lawyers, who may not have enough knowledge of the Rules of Court nor adequate training in court trial are terrorized by the judges. So lawyers have to bribe the judges to win their case. That’s it.

 

 

Visit  http://subicbay.ph