Pay up or else

Everybody and their uncle had only one topic du jour recently: Commission on Elections Chairman Andy Bautista and his wife with the third eye, Patricia. As the marital scandal implodes, revealing more intimate details about the power couple, tongues have not stopped wagging (and salivating).

As if they have suddenly taken an intensive course on psychological profiling and couples counseling, the public has taken intense, violent sides either for the alleged cuckolded husband or the accusing wife. Attacks have been launched by these total strangers versus one or the other, and one wonders how public animosity suddenly became so personal. Yet more symptoms of our dystopian, Facebook-connected society?

Not me, though. While curious about how the chairman answers the allegations, I was more attracted to the participation of one of Patricia's lawyers, a certain Martin Loon. You see, Loon apparently sent texts to the chairman in his zealous efforts to win a settlement for his client. Those messages included the following:

"Sir this is just a speeding ticket in life. In the bigger picture this will be nothing. You are still very young and have so much ahead of you."

"You and your children still have a bright future ahead sir. That proposed settlement is just a speeding ticket, and everyone will get a second chance to drive on the freeway again."

"Good afternoon sir. Spoke to your wife today. I think we have to fix this asap sir. She said she plans to see the president soon. I have a list of terms sir."

Yikes. A lawyer sent this to the counterparty, not even the counsel for the counterparty? Awkward! Of course, Chairman Bautista now alleges an extortion attempt from his wife and her attack dog.

Is it, though? Is the mention of the president himself enough to constitute extortion and blackmail? Much like, "I'm going to tell on you to teacher!" Or your father, your priest, a cop, or Satan, so he can drag you to hell!

Would those messages qualify as just aggressive lawyering? Or do they go beyond the ethical norms that bind lawyers, and mandate them to act with all due propriety? This would be a good question for legal ethics professors to tackle with their students: just how far can you go in communicating for and on behalf of your clients?

A macho classmate of mine from law school believes this was just a lawyer doing his job. Chairman Bautista, himself a lawyer and a Harvard graduate, disagrees.

There should be quite a few cases already decided by the Supreme Court on this exact topic. I typed in a few keywords on Google, and immediately hit on the case of Pena v. Aparicio, for example. (I just hope it's not a fake case).

In this particular disciplinary proceeding, the Supreme Court told Atty. Aparicio he shouldn't go around threatening to file tax evasion and other criminal charges if all he were trying to do was to collect separation pay for an employee. For him to mix these threats in his demand letter amounted to blackmail, according to the high court.

However, the only penalty imposed on Aparicio was a reprimand. If that were the yardstick employed in Loon's behavior, even if that behavior were concluded to be reprehensible, perhaps all that could be meted to him would be at most, just the same penalty: a reprimand. Not disbarment, and no suspension from the practice of law.

We will have to wait and see what happens next in this gripping drama now unfolding before our extremely gossip hungry eyes. Will Loon survive this instant fame/notoriety? Or will he become collateral damage?

He might only be issued a speeding ticket, for all we know.

‘Would those messages qualify as just aggressive lawyering? Or do they go beyond the ethical norms

that bind lawyers, and mandate them to act with

all due propriety?’