Examples of Legal Ethics Scenarios for Bar Exams

Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility is a cornerstone subject in the Philippine Bar Examinations. Since the adoption of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) in A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC (effective 2023), the Supreme Court has placed unprecedented emphasis on integrity, accountability, and public interest in the practice of law. The subject consistently accounts for 10–15% of the exam and is notorious for its scenario-based questions that test not only knowledge of rules but also moral judgment, practical wisdom, and the ability to apply principles under pressure.

This article exhaustively presents the most recurring, high-yield Legal Ethics scenarios that have appeared in the Bar from 1987 to 2025, grouped by theme, with detailed analysis, correct answers, common wrong answers, and examiner insights.

I. Attorney-Client Relationship: Formation, Termination, and Scope

Scenario 1 (Classic Formation Issue)
A walks into Atty. Reyes’s office crying, relates how her husband is physically abusing her, and asks, “Ano po ang dapat kong gawin?” Atty. Reyes advises her to file a case under R.A. 9262 and explains the procedure. A does not pay any fee and leaves. Two weeks later, A’s husband consults Atty. Reyes for the same case. Is there an attorney-client relationship with A?

Answer: YES. An attorney-client relationship was formed the moment Atty. Reyes gave specific legal advice on her particular problem. The relationship is not dependent on payment of fees or execution of a written contract (Hilado v. David, 1951; Dee v. Court of Appeals, 1989). By later accepting the husband, Atty. Reyes violates Canon III, Section 15 of the CPRA (prohibition against representing conflicting interests).

Scenario 2 (Prospective Client Rule – 2024 Bar)
Mr. Cruz consults Atty. Santos about filing an estafa case against his business partner. He discloses confidential details of the transaction. Atty. Santos declines the case because the amount involved is too small. One month later, the business partner hires Atty. Santos to defend him. Is this allowed?

Answer: NO. Even if the lawyer declines the engagement, information received from a prospective client is protected by the rule on conflict of interest if the information could be significantly harmful to that person (CPRA Canon III, Sec. 16). This “prospective client” rule is one of the major innovations of the CPRA and has appeared repeatedly since 2023.

Scenario 3 (Improper Termination)
Atty. Gomez is handling a labor case for worker Pedro. The case has been pending for three years. Pedro loses contact. Atty. Gomez files a motion to withdraw without Pedro’s consent and without notifying him at his last known address.

Answer: Violation of Canon II, Sec. 22 (withdrawal only for just cause and upon written notice/consent; must protect client’s interest). Proper procedure: file motion with notice to client at last known address, and seek court approval.

II. Conflict of Interest Scenarios

Scenario 4 (Concurrent Representation – Most Frequent)
Atty. Tan is the lawyer of a real estate corporation. The corporation sells a parcel of land to Mr. Lim, who is also represented by Atty. Tan in the deed of sale. Valid?

Answer: Absolutely prohibited. Canon III, Sec. 15 expressly prohibits a lawyer from representing conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure. Selling to one’s own client while representing the seller is a classic concurrent conflict (Nakpil v. Valdes, 1998; Aniño v. Murcia, 2020).

Scenario 5 (Successive Representation – “Substantially Related” Test)
Atty. Lim handled the incorporation of ABC Corp and drafted its articles and by-laws. Five years later, a minority stockholder hires Atty. Lim to file a derivative suit against the corporation’s directors for breach of fiduciary duty. Allowed?

Answer: NO. The matter is substantially related to the prior representation. The lawyer is presumed to have acquired confidential information that can be used against the former client (CPRA Canon III, Sec. 17; PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, 2005).

Scenario 6 (Lawyer as Notary Public in Same Transaction)
Atty. Cruz notarizes a deed of sale where he is also the lawyer of the seller and the buyer’s wife is his first cousin. Valid notarization?

Answer: Invalid on two grounds: (1) conflict of interest, and (2) financial interest in the transaction (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule II, Sec. 1; CPRA Canon III). Notarization is void ab initio.

III. Confidentiality and Attorney-Client Privilege

Scenario 7 (Disclosure to Prevent Crime or Fraud)
Client tells Atty. Ramos: “I will burn the warehouse tonight to collect the insurance.” May Atty. Ramos disclose this?

Answer: YES. CPRA Canon III, Sec. 6(b) allows disclosure to prevent the client from committing a criminal act that is likely to result in imminent death, substantial bodily harm, or substantial injury to property or the administration of justice.

Scenario 8 (Dead Client Exception – 2023 Bar)
Client dies in a car accident. In the probate of his will, a third party claims the will was forged. The client had previously confessed to Atty. Lopez that he forged the will. May Atty. Lopez testify?

Answer: YES. CPRA Canon III, Sec. 8(c) allows disclosure to rectify the consequences of a client’s fraudulent act in which the lawyer’s services had been used. This is the “post-mortem” exception.

IV. Candor Toward the Tribunal and Fairness

Scenario 9 (Knowledge of Falsity – Perennial Favorite)
During trial, the client testifies falsely under oath. The lawyer knows it is false but the client insists. What should the lawyer do?

Answer: The lawyer must first remonstrate with the client and seek to withdraw if the client insists (Canon IV, Sec. 11). If withdrawal is denied, the lawyer may not use the perjured testimony but must confine the examination to non-prejudicial matters. In extreme cases, the lawyer may disclose the falsity to the court (CPRA Canon IV, Sec. 12 – duty to prevent falsehood).

Scenario 10 (Filing of Baseless Cases)
Atty. Santos files 15 successive motions for extension and 10 motions to dismiss all lacking in merit, solely to delay the case. Violation?

Answer: Gross violation of Canon IV, Sec. 1 (duty to employ only fair and honest means) and Rule 12.02, Canon II of the old CPR (now CPRA Canon II, Sec. 9 – diligence and delay). This is forum shopping and willful delay amounting to grave misconduct (2024 Bar actual question).

V. Fees and Lien

Scenario 11 (Champertous Contract)
Atty. Go agrees: “I will handle your case for free. If we win, I get 50% of the property recovered.” Valid?

Answer: Void for being champertous and contrary to public policy (CPRA Canon II, Sec. 14). Contingent fees are allowed only in money claims, not in land or property recovery (except in labor cases for attorney’s fees under Art. 111, Labor Code).

Scenario 12 (Quantum Meruit After Discharge)
Client discharges Atty. Reyes after three years of litigation, one week before judgment favorable to the client is rendered. Atty. Reyes claims 40% contingent fee. Proper amount?

Answer: Only quantum meruit – reasonable value of services rendered up to discharge (San Jose Homeowners v. Roman Catholic Bishop, 2005). The lawyer cannot claim the full contingent fee.

VI. Advertising and Solicitation

Scenario 13 (Social Media Advertising – 2024–2025 Hot Topic)
Atty. Cruz posts on TikTok and Facebook: “Need annulment? 99% success rate! Message me now! Cheapest rates!” Violation?

Answer: Multiple violations: (1) claim of “99% success rate” is self-laudatory and unverifyable (CPRA Canon V, Sec. 2); (2) solicitation through touting; (3) undignified advertising. Allowed: simple posts stating availability for legal services without comparison or guarantee.

VII. Relations with Judges and Court Personnel

Scenario 14 (Gift to Judge)
Atty. Lim sends a brand-new iPhone to Judge Santos “as a Christmas gift” while his case is pending. Violation?

Answer: Grossly improper. Corrupt practice under CPRA Canon IV, Sec. 20 and R.A. 3019. Even if not intended as bribe, it creates appearance of impropriety.

VIII. Notarial Practice Violations (Frequent in 2020–2025 Bar)

Scenario 15
Atty. Notary notarizes a deed of sale without the personal appearance of the seller, relying only on an SPA. Valid?

Answer: Invalid. Personal appearance is jurisdictional (2004 Notarial Rules, Rule III, Sec. 2(b)). Notarization without personal appearance is ground for revocation of commission and disbarment (Flores v. Enriquez, 2021).

Key Takeaways for Bar Candidates

1. Always cite the exact CPRA provision (Canon and Section).
2. The CPRA is stricter than the old CPR – emphasis on accountability and public interest.
3. The “appearance of impropriety” standard still applies in many cases.
4. Most questions have only one clearly correct answer; distractors are usually partially correct or based on old rules.
5. Memorize the exceptions to confidentiality (prevent crime/fraud, defend against client’s accusation, dead client, court order).

Mastering these scenarios and their underlying principles will not only help you pass the Legal Ethics portion with flying colors but will also make you the kind of lawyer the Supreme Court envisions under the CPRA: competent, independent, faithful, accountable, and dedicated to public service.