Remedial Law, Legal and Judicial Ethics, with Practical Exercises › Legal and Judicial Ethics › Legal Ethics (CPRA) › Duties and Responsibilities of Lawyers (CPRA)

c. Propriety (Canon II)

PROPRIETY (CANON II)

Concept

Canon II of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) governs propriety in a lawyer’s conduct. It concerns not only how a lawyer acts before courts and clients, but also whether the lawyer’s behavior preserves public confidence in the legal profession. Professional standing does not end when a lawyer leaves the courtroom or office. (Art. II, CPRA)1 (Robiñol v. Bassig., A.C. No. 11836, 21 November 2017)2

Governing provisions

The CPRA is the governing code of professional conduct for lawyers. Canon II addresses propriety, while its specific provisions apply that standard to particular settings. For example, a lawyer must observe propriety in dealings with officers and personnel of courts, tribunals, and government agencies, whether those dealings are personal or professional. A lawyer serving in an educational institution must also observe the standards of the profession inside and outside the classroom and in all media. (Art. II, CPRA)1 (Art. 15, CPRA)3 (Art. 32, CPRA)4

Requisites / Rules

  • Propriety is the standard of conduct expected of a lawyer as a member of the profession. It applies to professional dealings and may also reach private conduct that reflects adversely on fitness to practice law. (Art. II, CPRA)1 (Robiñol v. Bassig.)2
  • Appearance matters. A lawyer must avoid familiarity with court, tribunal, or government personnel that gives rise to an appearance of impropriety, influence, or favor. The rule also prohibits claims of power, influence, or a relationship with such an officer. (Art. 15, CPRA)3
  • The setting does not remove the duty. The CPRA expressly applies its standards to lawyers in the academe inside and outside the classroom, including their conduct in media. Conduct in a lawyer’s private dealings may likewise be the subject of discipline. (Art. 32, CPRA)4 (Robiñol v. Bassig.)2

Key doctrines

Propriety connects a lawyer’s individual conduct with the dignity and integrity of the profession. Misconduct in private life is not automatically beyond professional scrutiny: the Court has disciplined lawyers for conduct it found grossly immoral, without requiring a prior criminal conviction for the same acts. At the same time, the disciplinary question is whether the established conduct warrants professional sanction, not merely whether someone disapproves of it. (Garrido v. Valencia., A.C. No. 6593, 4 February 2010)5 (Zerna v. Zerna., A.C. No. 8700, 8 September 2020)6

Responsible Use of Social Media applies the same concern for propriety to online conduct. The medium does not place a lawyer’s statements or behavior outside professional standards. Questions arising online should therefore be approached by identifying the conduct, the applicable CPRA duty, and its effect on the profession or persons involved—not by treating online activity as a separate license to disregard those duties. (A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC, Canon II) (Art. 32, CPRA)4

Bar tip

In a propriety problem, identify both the act and its setting. Ask whether the conduct itself, or the appearance it creates, conflicts with the standards expected of a lawyer; do not assume that personal or online conduct is exempt. (Art. 15, CPRA)3 (Robiñol v. Bassig.)2

Authorities

  • Art. 15, CPRA
  • Art. 32, CPRA
  • Art. II, CPRA
  • Garrido v. Valencia., A.C. No. 6593, 4 February 2010
  • Robiñol v. Bassig., A.C. No. 11836, 21 November 2017
  • Zerna v. Zerna., A.C. No. 8700, 8 September 2020