he shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter’s rights.
33
ACADEMICS CHAIR: LESTER JAY ALAN E.FLORES IIU
N I V E R S I T Y O FS
A N T OT
O M A SNote: Advertising is NOT malum in se and what the prohibition tries to prevent is advertising that tends to degrade the dignity of the profession. XPN: LEPO-LABAN-PD
1. Reputable Law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data, are allowed.
2. Advertisements or simple announcement of the Existence of a lawyer or his law firm posted anywhere it is proper such as his place of business or residence except courtrooms and government buildings.
3. Ordinary simple Professional Card. It may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number and the special branch of law practiced.
4. A simple announcement of the Opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the profession, is not objectionable.
5. Advertisements or announcement in any Legal publication, including books, journals, and legal magazines and in telephone directories. (Ulep v. Legal
Clinic, Inc., B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993)
6. Writing legal Articles
7. Engaging in Business and other occupations except when such could be deemed improper, be seen as indirect solicitation or would be the equivalent of a law practice
8. Activity of an association for the purpose of legal representation. 9. Notice to other local lawyers and
publishing in a legal journal of one’s availability to act as an associate for them
10. Seeking a Public office, which can only be held by a lawyer or, in a dignified manner, a position as a full time corporate counsel
11. Listing in a phone Directory, but not under a designation of a special branch of law. (Atty. Khan Jr. v. Atty. Simbillo,
A.C. No. 5299, Aug. 19, 2003)
Q: What is the rationale for the prohibition on advertisements?
A:
1. The profession is primarily for public service;
2. Commercializes the profession 3. Involves self-praise and puffing 4. Damages public confidence
5. May increase lawsuits and result in needless litigation
Note: It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. (In re: Tagorda, 53 Phil 42, Mar. 23, 1929) Q: What activities constitute indirect solicitation?
A:
1. Writing and selling for publication articles of general nature on legal subjects 2. Writing unsolicited article on a legal
subject.
Note: If engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently with the practice of law, the lawyer shall make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.
Q: Atty. Dulcinea writes a regular column in a newspaper of general circulation and articles on unforgettable legal stories in a leading magazine. Her by-line always includes the name of her firm where she is a name partner. Would you consider this as improper advertising? Explain your answer.
A: Atty. Dulcinea’s by-line including the firm name
where she belongs is improper because it is an
indirect way of solicitation or is an advertisement
of the law firm.
Q: A paid advertisement appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of Philippine Daily Inquirer, which reads: "ANNULMENT' OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667." Similar advertisements were published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star.
A staff member of the SC called up the published telephone number and pretended to be an interested party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her husband, Atty. Simbillo, was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four to six months, provided the case will not involve separation of property or custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband charges a fee of P48,000.00, half of which is payable at
the time of filing of the case and the other half after a decision thereon has been rendered. Does the appearance of the following: "ANNULMENT' OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532- 4333/521-2667", in a newspaper, amount to advertising and solicitation of legal services prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court?
A: Yes. It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business. It is a profession
in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves. (Atty. Khan Jr. v. Atty.
Simbillo, A.C. No. 5299, Aug. 19, 2003)
Note: The rule against solicitation applies to a lawyer who offers monetary reward to those who can serve as witness/es in the case, which he is handling. (CPR
Annotated, PhilJA)
Note: Solicitation of employment is a ground for suspension or disbarment.
Q: Facing disciplinary charges for advertising as a lawyer, Atty. A argues that although the calling card of his businessman friend indicates his law office and his legal specialty, the law office is located in his friend’s store. Decide.
A: This appears to be a circumvention of the
prohibition on improper advertising. There is no valid reason why the lawyer’s businessman friend should be handling out calling cards which contains the lawyer’s law office and legal specialty, even if his office is located in his friend’s store. What makes it more objectionable is the statement of his supposed legal specialty. (2001
Bar Question)
Q: A lawyer who had just paid his bill at a respectable car repair shop noticed that another customer was having a heated argument with the shop manager. It turned out that the customer’s car which was undergoing repair had been driven by one of the shop employees and had crashed against another car which was also being repaired. The lawyer approached the two who are arguing, identified himself as a practicing lawyer, and volunteered to help settle the matter amicably. At a subsequent
conference at the lawyer’s office, an amicable settlement was actually reached by the parties. Did the lawyer commit an infraction of professional ethics? Explain.
A: There is no infraction of professional ethics. It
does not appear from the facts that the lawyer who helped to settle the matter amicably had in view the retention of his services for a possible litigation or payment, promise or discharge of consideration in his favor. If all that the lawyer did was to help settle the matter amicably, then he should even be commended for helping contending parties avoid a lawsuit.
But if the purpose of the lawyer in helping to settle the matter amicably is to charge a fee or to carry favor by judging one side against the other, then he is guilty of improper solicitation, which is unethical. (1986 Bar Question)
Q: Dante wants to file a case against his wife for support; he secured the services of Atty. Reyes, his cousin and a private practitioner. However, Dante does not have sufficient money to pay for legal services. Nevertheless, Atty. Reyes accepted the case and promised to charge a lower rate. Did Atty. Reyes violate the Code of Professional Responsibilities?
A: No, Atty. Reyes did not violate the CPR. GR: A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than
those customarily prescribed.
XPN: When clients are relatives, co-lawyers, or
are indigents. These are the valid justifications.
The case of Dante falls under the valid justifications, so Atty. Reyes did not commit any unethical act.
Note: What the rule prohibits is a competition in the matter of charging professional fees for the purpose of attracting clients in favor of the lawyer who offers lower rates. The rule does not prohibit a lawyer from charging a reduced fee or none at all to an indigent. (Comments of the IBP Committee)
Rule 2.04, Canon 2,CPR – A lawyer shall not