Mauricio Ulep vs The Legal Clinic FACTS: In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales.

Its aim, a ccording to Nogales was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients wh o cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latter s advertisements which cont ain the following:xxx It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an arti cle entitled Rx for Legal Problems in Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can take care of a client s proble m no matter how complicated it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cun eta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, l ike doctors, are specialists in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor , litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up by a battery of par alegals, counselors and attorneys.As for its advertisement, Nogales said it shou ld be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the US which now allows it. And th at besides, the advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers. ISSUE: WON The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is a llowed; whether or not its advertisement may be allowed. HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such prac tice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The serv ices it offered include various legal problems wherein a client may avail of leg al services from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate undert akings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal Clini c which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a per son duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular standin g, is entitled to practice law.Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the legal prof ession condemn the lawyer s advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without v iolating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a m anner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allo wed. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcom e of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. Th at publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and prop er. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-produc t of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court a lso enumerated the following as allowed forms of advertisement: 1. Advertisement in a reputable law list 2. Use of ordinary simple professional card 3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specializ ation