Solicitation of legal services

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Arellano University School of Law – Arellano Law Foundation
2018-2019

 Code of Professional Responsibility

CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND
CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE PROFESSION.

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 latter's rights.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed unless the
circumstances so warrant.

 Code of Professional Responsibility

CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST,
FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not 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.
Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used. The continued
use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its
communications that said partner is deceased.
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and his name shall be
dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law currently.
Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the mass media in
anticipation of, or in return for publicity to attract legal business.

 Rule 138

Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. - A member of the bar may
be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases
at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.

 Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR

Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.

1
RULE 1.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY
SUIT OR PROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY MAN’S CAUSE.

This rule proscribes “ambulance chasing” (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an
attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain employment) as a measure to protect the
community from barratry and champerty. - Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009

 Do not “pirate” a client

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR
TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST
OPPOSING COUNSEL.

Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another
lawyer, however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to
those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

The following elements distinguish the legal profession from a business:

1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may attain the
highest eminence without making much money;
2. A relation as an “officer of the court” to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity,
integrity and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to
current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with
their clients. - Atty. Khan Jr. v. Atty. Simbillo, A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003

 General rule

Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment. - Linsangan v.
Atty. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009

 Thru all means of communication


Solicitation or obtaining of professional employment by any means of communication." - Geffen v. Moss,
53 Cal.App.3d 215, 125 Cal.Rptr. 687 [1975]

………

The term "solicit" includes contact in person, by telephone or telegraph, by letter or other writing, or by
other communication directed to a specific recipient, but does not include letters addressed or
advertising circulars distributed generally to persons not known to need legal services of the kind
provided by the lawyer in a particular matter, but who are so situated that they might in general find such
services useful. - Shapero v. KBA, 726 S.W.2d 299 (1986)

2
  Pecuniary gain not an element in solicitation

It is axiomatic xxx that a lawyer may not engage in the in-person solicitation of legal business. Even
assuming Johnston did not solicit Corcoran for pecuniary gain, [] prohibits in-person solicitation "under
any circumstance.”

We have no pecuniary gain requirement. This approach recognizes that face-to-face solicitation by
lawyers is "a practice rife with possibilities for overreaching, . . . undue influence, and outright
fraud." - Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board (Board) v. Gregory Alan Johnston732 N.W.2d 448
(2007)

 Solicitation or Ambulance chasing

We need not labor the point that solicitation or ambulance chasing, so-called, either directly or
indirectly through the services of runners or others, is conduct which is reprehensible and inimicable
to the traditions and best interests of the legal profession. Not only does it provoke derision and
disrespect in the eyes of the public, but it is an overreaching of the other members of the profession who
adhere to the standards fixed by canons of ethics and the dictates of good conscience. To permit such
conduct to continue undeterred could only result in unsavory competitions and consequences
materially detrimental to the dignity and honor of the legal profession as a whole. - In re Krasner
204 N.E.2d 10 (1965)

 Ambulance chasing

This rule proscribes “ambulance chasing” (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an
attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain employment) as a measure to protect the
community from barratry and champerty. - Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009

 Solicitation of a political organization

Appellant, a practicing lawyer in South Carolina who was also a cooperating lawyer with a branch of the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), after advising a gathering of women of their legal rights resulting
from their having been sterilized as a condition of receiving public medical assistance, informed one of the
women in a subsequent letter that free legal assistance was available from the ACLU. Thereafter, the
disciplinary Board of the South Carolina Supreme Court charged and determined that appellant, by sending
such letter, had engaged in soliciting a client in violation of certain Disciplinary Rules of the State Supreme
Court, and issued a private reprimand.

Issue: WON the lawyer engaged in unethical solicitation.

……

Solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as "a form of
political expression" and "political association" constitutes expressive and associational conduct
entitled to First Amendment protection, as to which government may regulate only "with narrow
specificity.”

The "collective activity undertaken to obtain meaningful access to the courts is a fundamental right
within the protection of the First Amendment." - In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978)

 Lawyer visited 2 accident victims

3
He approached two young accident victims at a time when they were especially incapable of making
informed judgments or of assessing and protecting their own interests. He solicited [the victim] in a
hospital room where she lay in traction, and sought out [the other victim] on the day she came home from
the hospital, knowing from his prior inquiries that she had just been released.
Appellant urged his services upon the young women. He employed a concealed tape recorder,
seemingly to insure that he would have evidence of [victim’s] oral assent to the representation. He
emphasized that his fee would come out of the recovery, thereby tempting the young women with what
sounded like a cost-free and therefore irresistible offer.

……

Held: The Bar, acting with state authorization, constitutionally may discipline a lawyer for soliciting
clients in person, for pecuniary gain, under circumstances likely to pose dangers that the State has a right
to prevent, and thus the application of the Disciplinary Rules in question to appellant does not offend the
Constitution.

(a) A lawyer's solicitation of business through direct, in-person communication with the prospective
clients has long been viewed as inconsistent with the profession's ideal of the attorney-client
relationship and as posing a significant potential for harm to the prospective client.

(b) The State does not lose its power to regulate commercial activity deemed harmful to the public simply
because speech is a component of that activity.

(c) A lawyer's procurement of remunerative employment is only marginally affected with First Amendment
concerns. While entitled to some constitutional protection, [respondent's] conduct is subject to
regulation in furtherance of important state interests. - Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U.S. 447
(1978)
……

(d) In addition to its general interest in protecting consumers and regulating commercial transactions, the
State bears a special responsibility for maintaining standards among members of the licensed
professions, especially members of the Bar. Protection of the public from those aspects of solicitation
that involve fraud, undue influence, intimidation, overreaching, and other forms of "vexatious conduct" is a
legitimate and important state interest.

(e) Because the State's interest is in averting harm by prohibiting solicitation in circumstances where it is
likely to occur, the absence of explicit proof or findings of harm or injury to the person solicited is
immaterial. The application of the Disciplinary Rules to appellant, who solicited employment for
pecuniary gain under circumstances likely to result in the adverse consequences the State seeks to avert,
does not offend the Constitution.

 Champertous contract

Champerty n. an agreement between the party suing in a lawsuit (plaintiff) and another person, usually an
attorney, who agrees to finance and carry the lawsuit in return for a percentage of the recovery
(money won and paid.) In Common Law this was illegal on the theory that it encouraged lawsuits.

 Contingent fee is valid

Contingent fee contracts are permitted in this jurisdiction because they redound to the benefit of the poor
client and the lawyer "especially in cases where the client has meritorious cause of action, but no means
with which to pay for legal services unless he can, with the sanction of law, make a contract for a

4
contingent fee to be paid out of the proceeds of litigation. Oftentimes, the contingent fee arrangement
is the only means by which the poor clients can have their rights vindicated and upheld."

As long as the lawyer does not exert undue influence on his client, that no fraud is committed or
imposition applied, or that the compensation is clearly not excessive as to amount to extortion, a
contract for contingent fee is valid and enforceable. – Fabillo v. IAC G.R. No. L-68838 March 11, 1991

 Acceptance fee

An acceptance fee is not a contingent fee, but is an absolute fee arrangement which entitles a lawyer to
get paid for his efforts regardless of the outcome of the litigation. - Yu v. Bondal, A.C. No. 5534, January 17,
2005

On the other hand, acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the lawyer for merely accepting the
case. This is because once the lawyer agrees to represent a client, he is precluded from handling cases of
the opposing party based on the prohibition on conflict of interest. Thus, the incurs an opportunity cost by
merely accepting the case of the client which is therefore indemnified by the payment of acceptance fee.
Since the acceptance fee only seeks to compensate the lawyer for the lost opportunity, it is not
measured by the nature and extent of the legal services rendered. – Dalupan v. Gacott, A.C. No. 5067,
June 29, 2015

 A misleading and deceptive public statement

By advertising a free initial consultation and free appointment and later charging the woman for their initial
meeting, the respondent made a misleading and deceptive public statement. - In the Matter of Paul J.
PACIOR, 770 N.E.2d 273 (2002)


Touters - someone who advertises for customers in an especially brazen way.
Common barratry consisting of frequently stirring up suits and quarrels between individuals.

 Only way to announce legal service

For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in reputable law
lists or use of simple professional cards. - Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009

 Acceptable law list publication

The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere
supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published principally
for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and
informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer
permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct, management, or contents of which are calculated
or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower dignity or standing of the profession. - Atty.
Khan Jr. v. Atty. Simbillo, A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003

……..

Thus, the use of simple signs stating the name or names of the lawyers, the office and residence
address and fields of practice, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief

5
data, are permissible. Even the use of calling cards is now acceptable. Publication in reputable law lists, in a
manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon, of brief biographical and
informative data is likewise allowable. - Atty. Khan Jr. v. Atty. Simbillo, A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003

 Uninformative fact

Somewhat more troubling is appellant's listing, in large capital letters, that he was a member of the Bar
of the Supreme Court of the United States. The emphasis of this relatively uninformative fact is at least
bad taste. - In re: R.M.J. 455 U.S. 191 [1982]

 Acceptable publication

The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may contain only a
statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number
and special branch of law practiced. The publication of 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. - Atty. Khan Jr. v. Atty. Simbillo, A.C. No. 5299, August
19, 2003

 Telephone directory

He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not under a designation of special
branch of law. - Atty. Khan Jr. v. Atty. Simbillo, A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003

Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:

(a) lawyer’s name;

(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
(c) address;
(d) telephone number and
(e) special branch of law practiced.
- Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009

 Brief biographical and informative data

Such data must not be misleading and may include only the following:
1. a statement of the lawyer’s name and the names of his professional associates;
2. addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses;
3. branches of law practiced;
4. date and place of birth and admission to the bar;
5. schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational distinctions;
6. public or quasi-public offices;

……
7. posts of honor;
8. legal authorships;
9. legal teaching positions;
10. membership and offices in bar associations and committees thereof, in legal and scientific
societies and legal fraternities;
11. the fact of listings in other reputable law lists;

6
 12. the names and addresses of references; and,
13. with their written consent, the names of clients regularly represented.
- Atty. Khan Jr. v. Atty. Simbillo, A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003

 Limits of solicitation

Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation to
be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest and
decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar. - Atty. Khan Jr. v. Atty. Simbillo,
A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003

 Rule in choosing a [law firm] name

Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used. The continued
use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its
communications that said partner is deceased.

………

A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships formed by other professionals or for
business. For one thing, the law on accountancy specifically allows the use of a trade name in connection
with the practice of accountancy.

A partnership for the practice of law is not a legal entity. It is a mere relationship or association for a
particular purpose. ... It is not a partnership formed for the purpose of carrying on trade or
business or of holding property." Thus, it has been stated that "the use of a nom de plume, assumed or
trade name in law practice is improper.

 Whether or not the firm of Velasquez, Rodriguez, Respicio, Ramos, Nidea, and Prado may call itself
“A law Firm Of St. Thomas More and Associate Members”

We agree with the OBC. Rule 3.02 is clear. No name not belonging to any of the partners or associates
may be used in the firm name for any purpose. In one case, we have ruled that the use of the firm
name of a foreign law firm is unethical because that firm is not authorized to practice law in this
jurisdiction. In this case, “The Law Firm of St. Thomas More and Associate Members” is not a law firm in
this jurisdiction or even in any other jurisdiction. A “St. Thomas More and Associates” or STMA is in fact
the socio-political ministry or the couples for Christ, a Christian family-renewal community. - PP v.
Gonzalez, Jr., G.R. No. 139542 June 10, 2003

…..

To appellate to the name of the lawyers “The Law Firm of St. Thomas More and Associate Members” indeed
appears misleading. It implies that St. Thomas More is a Law Firm when in fact it is not it would also
convey to the public the impression that the lawyers are members of the law firm which does not exist. To
the public, it would seem that the purpose or intention of adding “The Law Firm of St. Thomas More and
Associates Members” is to bask in the name of a Saint, although that may not really, be the purpose or
intention of the lawyers. The appellation only tends to confuse the public and in a way demean both
the saints and the legal profession whose members must depend on their own name and record and
merit and not on the name/glory of other persons living or dead. – PP v. Gonzalez, Jr., G.R. No. 139542 June
10, 2003

 Unacceptable advertisement

7
 LUIS B. TAGORDA
Attorney
Notary Public
CANDIDATE FOR THIRD MEMBER
Province of Isabela

(NOTE. — As notary public, he can execute for you a deed of sale for the purchase of land as required by
the cadastral office; can renew lost documents of your animals; can make your application and final
requisites for your homestead; and can execute any kind of affidavit. As a lawyer, he can help you collect
your loans although long overdue, as well as any complaint for or against you. Come or write to him in his
town, Echague, Isabela. He offers free consultation, and is willing to help and serve the poor.)

 Prohibited advertisement or solicitation

In re: Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37 (1929)

But solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interview not

warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional.

It is equally unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters of any kind, whether allied
real estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills or offering retainers
in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer.

Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the
manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the lawyer's position,
and all other like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are
intolerable.

Philippine Daily Inquirer, which reads:

“ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667.”

- Atty. Khan Jr. v. Atty. Simbillo, A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003

 Calling card of Atty. Tolentino

NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFFICE
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal

1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01 Tel: 362-7820

6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar Fax: (632) 362-7821
Grace Park, Caloocan City Cel.: (0926) 2701719

8
Back
SERVICES OFFERED:
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
ABROAD.

…..

Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to
transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection
on their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them text
messages.
To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that
Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize
respondent’s services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000.

…..

Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as borrowers, respondent violated Rule
16.04:

Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected
by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except,
when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the
client. - Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009

…..

The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only exception is, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses (such as filing fees, stenographer’s fees for transcript of
stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the
client.

The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer’s independence of mind so that the free exercise of his
judgment may not be adversely affected. It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is
handling as well as his entire devotion and fidelity to the client’s cause. - Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, A.C.
No. 6672, September 4, 2009

 Lending money to client

If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the client’s case, the lawyer in effect acquires an
interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome. Either of these
circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client, or to
accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the verdict to the prejudice of the client in
violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the client’s cause. - Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672,
September 4, 2009

9
  Including a government lawyer in a business card

Thus, while he may not be actually and directly employed with the firm, the fact that his name appears
on the calling card as a partner in the Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig & Celera Law Offices give the
impression that he is connected therein and may constitute an act of solicitation and private practice
which is declared unlawful under Republic Act No. 6713. - Samonte v. Atty. Gatdula A.M. No. P-99-1292
[1999]
 A verified complaint, sought to enjoin Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine other lawyers from
practicing law under the name of Baker & McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois

We hold that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule
138, Rules of Court). As admitted by the respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a
professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities
around the world. Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine bar, practicing under the firm
name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker & Mckenzie. - Dacanay v. Baker &
McKenzie, et. al. Adm. Case No. 2131 [1985]

…..

As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie
constitutes a representation that being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the
highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment“.
This is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practice law here. - Dacanay v. Baker &
McKenzie, et. al. Adm. Case No. 2131 [1985]

 Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot,

A.C. No. L-1117, March 20, 1944

Sunday Tribune of June 13, 1943, which reads as follows:

Marriage license promptly secured thru our assistance & 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.

Legal assistance service

12 Escolta, Manila, Room, 105
Tel. 2-41-60.

 Admonition to a young lawyer

"The most worth and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . is the establishment of a
well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be
the outcome of character and conduct.“ - Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot, A.C. No. L-1117, March 20,
1944

 Volunteer [legal] advice is malpractice

It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of
blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do so. Stirring up strife and litigation is not only
unprofessional, but it is indictable at common law. - Canons of Professionals Ethics adopted by the American

10
Bar Association in 1908 and by the Philippine Bar Association in 1917. Canons 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics -
In re: Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37 (1929)

 Your best advertisement as a lawyer

We repeat, the canon of the profession tell us that 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
outcome 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. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and
proper. 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-product of able service and the unwholesome
result of propaganda. - Ulep vs. Legal Clinic 223 SCRA 378

 Best mode of advertisement

The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially with his
brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must be the outcome of character and conduct. - In re:
Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37 (1929)

 Law firm with a foreign lawyer as partner

In the year 1904 he made an arrangement with the defendant Ney, a practicing attorney, to carry on
business together, sending out a circular signed "Ney & Bosque," stating that they had established an
office for the general practice of law in all the courts of the Islands and that Bosque would devote himself
especially to consultation and office work relating to Spanish law. The paper was headed "Law Office
- Ney & Bosque. Juan G. Bosque, juris consulto español - C.W. Ney, abogado americano."

Since that time the defendant Bosque has not personally appeared in the courts, and with one exception,
occuring through an inadvertance, papers from the office were signed not with the firm name alone nor
with any designation of the firm as attorneys, but with the words "Ney & Bosque - C.W. Ney, abogado.“ -
U.S. vs. Ney and Bosque, 8 Phil. 146 (1907)

…..

Moreover the firm circular in setting forth the establishment of an office for the general practice of law in
all the courts of the Islands, amounted to an assertion of his right and purpose, not effectively qualified
by the addition that he would devote himself to consultation and office work relating to Spanish
law.

Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not 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.
Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used. Xxx.

 A disbarred lawyer's name cannot be part of a firm's name

A lawyer who appears under a firm name that contains a disbarred lawyer's name commits indirect
contempt of court. - David Yu Kimteng, et. al. v. Atty. Young, et. al., G.R. No. 210554, August 05, 2015

11
 
“Informal partnership”
vis-a-vis
“acting together as a law firm”

……..

In their defense, respondents admitted that they indeed operated under the name Valencia Ciocon Dabao
Valencia De La Paz Dionela Pandan Rubica Law Office, but explained that their association is not a
formal partnership, but one that is subject to certain "arrangements."

According to them, each lawyer contributes a fixed amount every month for the maintenance of the
entire office; and expenses for cases, such as transportation, copying, printing, mailing, and the like are
shouldered by each lawyer separately, allowing each lawyer to fix and receive his own professional fees
exclusively.

…….

As such, the lawyers do not discuss their clientele with the other lawyers and associates, unless they
agree that a case be handled collaboratively. Respondents claim that this has been the practice of the law
firm since its inception.

They averred that complainant's labor cases were solely and exclusively handled by Atty. Dionela and not
by the entire law firm. Moreover, respondents asserted that the qualified theft case filed by FEVE Farms
was handled by Atty. Penalosa, a new associate who had no knowledge of complainant's labor cases, as he
started working for the firm after the termination thereof.

 Held

As the Court observes, the law firm's unethical acceptance of the criminal case arose from its failure to
organize and implement a system by which it would have been able to keep track of all cases
assigned to its handling lawyers to the end of, among others, ensuring that every engagement it accepts
stands clear of any potential conflict of interest.

As an organization of individual lawyers which, albeit engaged as a collective, assigns legal work to a
corresponding handling lawyer, it behooves the law firm to value coordination in deference to the conflict
of interest rule. This lack of coordination, as respondents' law firm exhibited in this case, intolerably
renders its clients' secrets vulnerable to undue and even adverse exposure, eroding in the balance the
lawyer-client relationship's primordial ideal of unimpaired trust and confidence. – Anglo v. Attys. Valencia,
et. Al., A.C. No. 10567, February 25, 2015

 By including self-laudatory details in his professional card, did the Judge violate Canon 2,
Rule 2.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct?

Judge [] was circulating calling cards bearing his name as the Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 73, Malabon
City, and indicating therein that he is a "bar exams topnotcher (87.55%)" and with "full second honors"
from the Ateneo de Manila University, A.B. and LL.B.

…….

Judge [] argues that, per commentary of Justice Ruperto G. Martin, "the use of professional cards
containing the name of the lawyer, his title, his office and residence is not improper" and that the word

12
"title" should be broad enough to include a Judge’s legal standing in the bar, his honors duly
earned or even his Law School.

Moreover, other lawyers do include in their calling cards their former/present titles/positions like President
of the Jaycees, Rotary Club, etc., so where then does one draw the line?

……..

In Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc., we explained that the use of an ordinary and simple professional card by
lawyers is permitted and that the card "may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm
which he is connected with, address, telephone number and special branch of law practiced." In herein
case, Judge’s calling cards cannot be considered as simple and ordinary. By including therein the honors
he received from his law school with a claim of being a bar topnotcher, Judge [] breached the norms
of simplicity and modesty required of judges.

 Use of titles “Justice” and “Judge”

We have previously declared that the use of titles such as “Justice” is reserved to incumbent and retired
members of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan and may not be used by any
other official of the Republic, including those given the rank of “Justice”. By analogy, the title “Judge”
should be reserved only to judges, incumbent and retired, and not to those who were dishonorably
discharged from the service.

As correctly pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, the right to retain and use said title applies
only to the aforementioned members of the bench and no other, and certainly not to those who were
removed or dismissed from the judiciary, such as respondent.

Thank you for your attention!!

13