As long as a legal practitioner may act free from a bond of loyalty to another, the Bar cannot restrict one's choice of clients. Conflict rules are designed to protect a client from a lawyer unable to undertake effective advocacy because of loyalty to some adverse or conflicting interest. No such protection was needed here. His own interests in the matter were not shown to have impaired his effective advocacy. If anything, Andre was overzealous in advocating his wife's cause.
Lawyers have an ethical duty to advance the cause of the client.
Their equally solemn duty is to comply with the standards of professional conduct.12 A practitioner's duty to advocate his client's cause is restricted to legitimate, lawful conduct and those devices that are commensurate with the nature of a trial as a tool in search for truth.13 Harassing a witness because of her adverse testimony clearly falls outside the permissible bounds of aggressive advocacy. Andre's conduct was abusive of and intrusive into Ms. Seng's life. He and his wife verbally attacked Ms. Seng for her stance adverse to their interests. Ms. Seng's employment was not at all interconnected with her testimony in the custody hearing. Yet Andre and his wife continuously pressed their complaints to her employer, making Ms. Seng fearful of losing her job.