OVERGAARD V. VALDEZ (DISBARMENT)

Lawyer Valdez committed multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility by having taken full retainer's fee and not having done anything regarding Complainant Overgaard's cases to the latter's prejudice and dismay.

Rule 139, Sec. 27 Grounds for DISBARMENT/suspension:

• deceit
• malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office
• grossly immoral conduct
• conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
• violation of the lawyer's oath
• willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court
• willful appearance as an attorney for a party without authority

Respondent Valdez had indubitably fallen below the exacting standards demanded of members of the bar.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:

• A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
• A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.
• A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
• A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
• A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
• A lawyer is required to keep the client informed of the status of his case and to respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
• A lawyer shall account for all money and property collected or received for and from the client.

Respondent Valdez did exactly the opposite.

The PRACTICE OF LAW IS NOT A RIGHT, BUT A PRIVILEGE. It is granted only to those of good moral character. The Bar must maintain a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at large, and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.

In this case, SC finds that suspension for 3 years recommended by the IBP is not sufficient punishment for the unacceptable acts and omissions of Respondent Valdez. For violating elementary principles of professional ethics and failing to observe the fundamental duties of honesty and good faith, respondent has proven himself unworthy of membership in this noble profession.

DISBARRED.