ULEP vs. THE LEGAL CLINIC, Bar Matter No.

553, June 17, 1993

FACTS:

Petitioner prays the Court to order the respondent to cease and desist issuing advertisements
similar to or of the same tenor and to perpetually prohibits persons or entities from making
advertisements pertaining to the exercise of law profession other that those allowed by law. Petitioner
claims that the advertisements reproduced by respondent are champterous, unethical, demeaning of the
law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrated bar of the
Philippines. In its answer, the respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisement but claims
that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of “legal support service”.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent’s act constitutes improper advertising or solicitation.

HELD:

Yes, respondent’s act constitutes improper advertising or solicitation. The code of professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal service shall use only true, honest, fair
dignified and objective information or statement of facts. Further, a lawyer shall not pay nor give
something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return of, publicity to
attract legal business. The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his
talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession advertise his talents or skill as a
manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Hence, the respondent’s act of advertising the legal
profession constitutes improper advertising or solicitation.