Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DE LARA
JD-1-2
LEGAL ETHICS
RULE 2.01. A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons the
cause of the defenseless or the oppressed .
RULE 2.02. In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case,
he shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if
only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latters right.
RULE 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Director of Religious Affairs V. Bayot
(74 Phil. 579)
Facts:
Respondent is charged with malpractice for having
published an advertisement in Sunday Tribunal of June 13, 1943 which
reads as follows:
Marriage license promptly secured thru our assistance
and the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if desired and
marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter
free for the poor. Everything confidential.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is in violation of the
canons of professional ethics?
Held:
Yes, it is undeniable that the advertisement in question
was a flagrant violation by the respondent of the ethics of his
profession. It is higly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents
or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not
a trade.
In Re: Tagorda
(53 Phil. 42, March 23, 1929)
Facts:
The respondent Luis B. Tagorda, a practicing
attorney and a member of the provincial board of Isabela, admits that
previous to the last general elections he made use of card advertising
his expertise in legal services through a letter he sent to a lieutenant of
barrio in his home municipality.
Issue:
Did the respondents action constitutes a violation of his
profession?
Held:
Yes, the admitted facts give the conviction of having
solicited cases in defiance of the law and canons. It is destructive of
the honor of a great profession. It lowers the standards of that
profession. It works against the confidence of the community in the
integrity of the members of the bar.
People V. McCable
(18 Colo. 186)
Facts:
Respondent caused the publication of the following
advertisement in a newspaper: If you like divorce, communicate with
me, and your desire will be gratified. No one will know it. You see I
advertise anonymously. I did not even subject myself to criticism.
Everything will be done very quietly and you will be able to secure the
dissolution of the disagreeable marriage tie without public scandal and
hence without reproach. Good everywhere. Box 2344, Denver.
Issue:
CPR?
Held:
Yes. This advertisement is highly reprehensible. It is well
calculated to encourage people to make application for divorces who
might otherwise have refrained from so doing. It is against good morals
public or private. It is a false representation and a libel upon the court
of justice.
Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner
V.
The Legal Clinic Inc., respondent
(Bar Matter No. 553, June 17, 1993)
Facts:
Attorney Rogelio Nogales set up the Legal Clinic in
1984, inspired by the trend in the medical field toward specialization. It
caters to clients who cannot afford services of the big law firms.
On January 13, 1991, an advertisement was published in
Starweek/ the Sunday Magazine of the Philippine Star, entitled Rx for
Legal Problems. The said article gave way to the petitioner to file
petition to the court praying to order the respondent to cease and
desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as
that of what was published.
Issue:
Whether or not the advertisements are in contrast
with the rule of Canon of Professional Responsibility?
Held:
Yes. The supreme court held that those
advertisements made by the respondent are contrary Rule 2.03 and
Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rule 2.04. A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those
customarily prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.
Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall noy use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
In Re: Tagorda
(53 Phil. 42, March 23, 1929)
Facts:
The respondent Luis B. Tagorda, a practicing
attorney and a member of the provincial board of Isabela, admits that
Held:
No, we find no merit in petitioners contention. The death
of Atty. Crispin Baizas does not extinguish the lawyer-client relationship
between firm and petitioner. Negligence of the member in the firm is
negligence of the firm