Case Digest: Ulep vs Legal Clinic, Inc. 223 SCRA 378 (1993), Bar Matter No. 553

Ulep vs Legal Clinic, Inc. 223 SCRA 378 (1993), Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993

Subject: Basic Legal Ethics

FACTS

Mauricio C. Ulep, a lawyer, filed a petition with the Supreme Court of the Philippines against The Legal Clinic, Inc., a non-lawyer entity that was advertising legal services. Ulep alleged that the Legal Clinic's advertisements were champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar. Atty. Ulep, alleged that, the Legal Clinic's advertisements were champertous because they solicited clients by promising to obtain favorable results in their cases.

The Legal Clinic's advertisements were unethical because they implied that the Legal Clinic was staffed by lawyers, when in fact it was not. The Legal Clinic's advertisements were demeaning of the law profession because they made it appear that anyone could practice law, regardless of their training or qualifications. The Legal Clinic's advertisements were destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar because they created the impression that lawyers were no longer necessary to obtain legal representation.

ISSUE

Whether or not the advertised services offered by the Legal Clinic are in violation of the Code of Professional responsibility.

RULING

YES. Under Rule 2.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business”

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. It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skills. Law is a profession and not a trade. The Supreme Court noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The canon of the profession tells us that the best advertisement possible for a lawyer is a well merited reputation for a professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct.

In this case, the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the respondent of the ethics of the profession, thus, respondent Legal Clinic, Inc. is restrained and enjoined from issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose Annexes "A" and "B" of this petition.