Diaz, Francis C.

2017400143
Legal Counseling SPL2

Chapter 1 - Buried Bodies: Robert Garrow and His Lawyers

Frank Armani and Francis Belge, lawyers of the accused, Robert Garrow, for

multiple crime of murder, rape, and abduction, were confronted by a terrible and serious

dilemma. Whether they should reveal the information they acquired from the accused to the

police or the district attorney? Or maybe they could at least tell the judge? Or should they

maintain their silence, even if it meant concealing evidence of multiple murder?

As they analyze it, the lawyers both felt that the principle of lawyer-client

confidentiality requires them to say nothing to anyone. Thus, both lawyers keep their

silence.

Under Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, A lawyer shall

preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is

terminated.

Confidence refers to information protected by the attorney-client privilege and

secrets refer to other information gained in the professional relationship that the client has

regulated to be held inviolate or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would

likely be detrimental to the client.

Thus, a lawyer cannot divulge such information without the consent of their

client, even if such information may lead to the finding of the bodies of Alicia Hauck and

Susan Petz. This is what Armani and Belge decided to do.

To begin with, Robert Garrow is taken into custody merely as a suspect for the

murder of Philip Doblewski. The case of Garrow, being already one of the most notorious

in upstate New York, Armani took this chance to be in the spotlight. It is with mixed

feelings that he accepted the appointment. However, upon using a party-trick hypnosis, the

lawyers made Robert Garrow confessed to the murder of not only just Doblewski, but also

to the murder of the missing the Alicia Hauck, and Susan Petz.

These confessions are both heavy to the heart and conscience. Three people have

been murdered, two families are still looking for their daughters, and that one murderer is

being defended by two renowned lawyers. Lawyers whose duty is to uphold the law and

see to it that justice must be served at all cost.

Perhaps, Armani and Belge forgot that the duty of a lawyer is not limited to their

client. They also have a sworn duty to the society, the legal profession, the courts, and to

their client last. But we know that this is not the case.

It would be an injustice to Robert Garrow, if the lawyer who sworn to protect and

defend him would also be the one to stab him at his back. While it is true that Garrow

committed these murders, he would still need someone to protect and defend him in court.

And that someone would be Armani and Belge.

People, no matter what they may have done, aren't wicked. They are damaged,

deprived or in distress. Their crimes can be understood as the products of awful lives, or of

being young, hot-headed and lacking in judgment. There is always a story. And Robert

Garrow’s story has been heard in court. We can understand that his upbringing made him

the murderer that he is now. That having raised in violence, Garrow now has become an

emissary of violence.

Keeping the confessions of Garrow is not siding with injustice nor is it betrayal of

a lawyer’s sworn duty to the society. Both Armani and Belge were particularly tormented

by having to keep silent in the face of inquiries from both Alicia Hauck and Susan Petz’s

families. As Armani said, echoing Justice Hand, if a principle doesn’t belong to the worst of

us, then it can’t belong to the best.

In the Philippines, while Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

provides for the lawyer-client privilege communication, the same was also protected by the

Revised Penal Code under Article 209. This provides that in addition to the proper

administrative action, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine

ranging from P200 to P1000, or both, shall be imposed upon any attorney at law or solicitor

who, by any malicious break of professional duty as inexcusable negligence or ignorance,

shall prejudice his client, or reveal any of the secrets of the latter learned by him in his

professional capacity.

If the case happened within the jurisdiction of the Philippine courts, Armani and

Belge would really have no choice but to keep the secrets of Barrow. Otherwise, more than
Diaz, Francis C. 2017400143
Legal Counseling SPL2

an administrative sanction, both lawyers shall be held criminally liable for divulging

Barrow’s secret in public.

But more than any fear for an administrative or criminal sanction, the lawyer-

client privilege must be upheld with utmost fidelity. This fiduciary duty requires that

lawyers place their client’s cause above the lawyers own individual interest.

If lawyers don’t see themselves as purveyors of truth but are much more

comfortable to the idea that they are seekers of justice, they point to a legal fiction which,

more often than not, leads to injustice. Self-defense, minority, and insanity may no longer

be a defense due to this legal fiction. And with this, I have come to agree with Armani and

Belge’s code of silence.

However, when a time comes that I am faced with the similar situation, may God

leads me to the proper decision. May I define the line between my duty to my client, and

my duty to the society. And by defining this line, may I come upon the right decision
Diaz, Francis C. 2017400143
Legal Counseling SPL2

Chapter 2 – Another Day Spent Representing the Guilty

He who defends the guilty, knowing him to be so, forgets alike honour and

honesty, and is false to God and man. I believe so and I would take these words by heart.

However, such words are meaningless under the jurisdiction of courts. The rights of an

accused are provided by law. It cannot be increase nor decrease by mere moral guidelines.

Under section 20(i), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, it is the duty of a lawyer, in

the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his

personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law

permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of

law.

Further, under section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, no person shall be

deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be

denied the equal protection of the laws.

Defending the guilty is never an option but a constitutionally mandated right.

Representing the guilty in courts can never be justified as it requires no justification at all.

Every person would need someone to defend them, whether in or out of courts. Everyone

needs to depend on someone who has information or expertise they lack.

The only question to ask is how hard should a lawyer fought, at a trial, for a client

that he’s convinced to be so guilty? Should he actually try to get that person off? Does the

terrible nature of a crime makes a difference?

In the case of Kirk Hopman and Rowena Soo, accused for four counts of child

abuse and great bodily injury, defense lawyer Richie Richewski faces these ethical issues. It

makes it even harder when Hopman admitted to him his guilt. Should he allow it to affect

his defense? Kirk may be a very bad man, but Hopman has promised him the best he can

give.

Is it possible to be moral and represents guilty clients with all the vigor and zeal

the law requires? I think so. None of us would want to be defined by the very worst thing

we ever did. It is the unwritten law which I think may compel me not to refuse.

Lawyers are not the one to make a judgment call. If lawyers backed-off because

someone is unpopular or hated, then our whole justice system would just fall apart.

Lawyers should try to find the humanity in the people they represent, no matter what they

may have done. The last thing a good advocate should do is judge a client.

Now, should a lawyer present evidence that, though truthful in itself, may mislead

the court into thinking that the accused is innocent?

Under Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall

represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. It is with this zeal that a lawyer

is mandated to give his all. And I agree with this.

An accused is not judge by the weakness of his defense, but by the strength of the

prosecution. It is by the evidence presented that his guilt is established. By all means, the

defense lawyer is free to provide the necessary defense for his client. And in such a case

that a guilty man goes free, the fault can never be imputed to the defense lawyer, but to the

prosecution for not giving the best for their job.

Krik Hopman and Rowena Soo was only convicted to a lesser crime of reckless

endangerment and sentenced to one year of imprisonment. Lawyer Richie Richewski

justified the way he defended his client, “to me, within the bounds of the law, there is no

such thing as degrees of zeal. Zeal means doing your best, period.”

Again, lawyers should try to find the humanity in the people they represent, no

matter what they may have done. Zeal without humanity is like a ship without a rudder,

liable to be stranded at any moment.