A Reaction Paper on Plagiarism within the Legal Profession by Oscar Cajucom

It is only human nature to be curious. We have come so far and done so much in
such a short span of our existence as a species. And we attribute that to our sense of
creativity. From the things we see, hear and do. From how we interact with things and
with other people, we create our own original ideas. But sometimes, we forget to give
recognition that these ideas, no matter how unique, also came from the ideas of others.
That is the conundrum of plagiarism.
Justice Del Castillo, a respected Justice of the Supreme Court, was accused of
plagiarism, by not citing parts of his decision was largely based on another work. The
U.P. College of Law cried foul, saying Justice Del Castillo deliberately plagiarized in
order to take the credit all for himself. The Justice, in response, said that he never
intended to omit citations to the original work, saying that it was deleted by accident by
his researchers. The Supreme Court deemed this as mere excusable negligence, and
that intent is deceive should be present. I agree with this notion. If intent is not needed
to produce plagiarism, then almost all academic and creative work, from books, to film,
even simple words, can be considered as stealing parts ones work. In that sense
plagiarism becomes vague because everybody is considered a plagiarist in their daily
acts.
Justice Serenos dissent was right on point about disciplinary action, that we should look
at the diligence of a judge has over his actions, as well as the action available and
appropriate. A Justice of the Supreme Court, even with something as simple as
excusable negligence, have far reaching consequences to both the respondents, and
the nation as a whole.
Plagiarism is a problem in general. It is subjective in nature. To some people, not citing
a couple of words from the work of another is already considered academic dishonesty
and plagiarism, while some do not. As mentioned above, some people recognize
plagiarism when there is intent, and some recognize it with or without intent. But all
consider it dishonest and in a way cheating your way to success and unjustly
appreciating yourself. In the legal profession, plagiarism is common. In practice, many
lawyers take and use works from other lawyers without citing their sources, and some
judges even hire ghostwriters for their decisions. In fact, Katherine DuVivier points out
that the profession of law is built on borrowing. This practice, while a reality, should be
minimized if possible.

As a student, I realize that students would ignore citing sources because they want
higher grades, or that they want to be recognized in the legal academe. Thanks to the
World Wide Web, we can search for any persons idea, from a well-respected legal
personality to an anonymous stranger in a blog site, and claim it as our own. Even

though most institutions cite plagiarism as immoral and intellectually dishonest, most
students are not punished for it.
In conclusion, we must give credit where credit is due. Recognizing the efforts put into
the study or the decisions made by others should be practiced in all facets of the legal
profession, at least in good faith. As Green has indicated, blatant indifference in itself
makes a person guilty of plagiarism. While I know that citing sources to every couple of
words is very tedious, and you can even argue its a waste of time and resources. That
is no excuse to deny the original authors the applause they deserve.