Bar Matter No.

553 June 17, 1993

MAURICIO C. ULEP vs. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

FACTS:

Petitioner prays this Court to order the respondent to cease and desist from issuing
advertisements about marriage, annulment and divorce and to perpetually prohibit
persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the
law profession other than those allowed by law.

It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements are champterous,

unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the
community in the integrity of the members of the bar and that, as a member of the
legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements, hence the
reliefs sought in his petition as hereinbefore quoted.

Respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisement at its instance, but
claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal
support services" through paralegals with the use of modern computers and
electronic machines. Respondent further argues that assuming that the services
advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these services should be
allowed supposedly in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs.
State Bar of Arizona, reportedly decided by the United States Supreme Court on
June 7, 1977.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as
advertised by it constitutes practice of law and, in either case, whether the same
can properly be the subject of the advertisements herein complained of.

RULING:

In the recent case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, after citing the doctrines in several
cases, we laid down the test to determine whether certain acts constitute "practice
of law," thus:

Black defines "practice of law" as:

The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal
principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not
limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation,
but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and
special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds,
and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients and all
actions taken for them in matters connected with the law.

This Court, in the case of Philippines Lawyers Association v. Agrava (105 Phil. 173,
176-177),stated:
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it
embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and
special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of
clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice
to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law
incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services contemplating an
appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a
creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting
proceedings in attachment, and in matters or estate and guardianship have been
held to constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal
instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal
mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions.

The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court.
Applying the aforementioned criteria to the case at bar, we agree with the
perceptive findings and observations of the aforestated bar associations that the
activities of respondent, as advertised, constitute "practice of law."

The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can neither
be seriously considered nor sustained. Said proposition is belied by respondent's
own description of the services it has been offering, to wit:

Legal support services basically consists of giving ready information by trained

paralegals to laymen and lawyers, which are strictly non-diagnostic, non-advisory,
through the extensive use of computers and modern information technology in the
gathering, processing, storage, transmission and reproduction of information and
communication, such as computerized legal research; encoding and reproduction of
documents and pleadings prepared by laymen or lawyers; document search;
evidence gathering; locating parties or witnesses to a case; fact finding
investigations; and assistance to laymen in need of basic institutional services from
government or non-government agencies, like birth, marriage, property, or
business registrations; educational or employment records or certifications,
obtaining documentation like clearances, passports, local or foreign visas; giving
information about laws of other countries that they may find useful, like foreign
divorce, marriage or adoption laws that they can avail of preparatory to emigration
to the foreign country, and other matters that do not involve representation of
clients in court; designing and installing computer systems, programs, or software
for the efficient management of law offices, corporate legal departments, courts
and other entities engaged in dispensing or administering legal services.

It should be noted that in our jurisdiction the services being offered by private
respondent which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals.
Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such
in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court, and who is in good and
regular standing, is entitled to practice law.

We have to necessarily and definitely reject respondent's position that the concept
in the United States of paralegals as an occupation separate from the law
profession be adopted in this jurisdiction. Paralegals in the United States are trained
professionals. As admitted by respondent, there are schools and universities there
which offer studies and degrees in paralegal education, while there are none in the
Philippines.

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. He is not supposed to 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. Nor shall he pay or give
something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in
return for, publicity to attract legal business. Prior to the adoption of the code of
Professional Responsibility, the Canons of Professional Ethics had also warned that
lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements for professional employment,
such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph
to be published in connection with causes in which the lawyer has been or is
engaged or 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.

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 in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The
prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business
rests on the fundamental postulate that the that the practice of law is a profession.
Thus, in the case of The Director of Religious Affairs. vs. Estanislao R. Bayot an
advertisement, similar to those of respondent which are involved in the present
proceeding, was held to constitute improper advertising or solicitation.

The canon of the profession tells 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.

Of course, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited. The canons of
the profession enumerate exceptions to the rule against advertising or solicitation
and define the extent to which they may be undertaken. The exceptions are of two
broad categories, namely, those which are expressly allowed and those which are
necessarily implied from the restrictions.

The first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law lists, in a manner
consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of brief
biographical and informative data. "Such data must not be misleading and may
include only a statement of the lawyer's name and the names of his professional
associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of law
practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar; schools attended with
dates of graduation, degrees and other educational distinction; public or quasi-
public offices; posts of honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions;
membership and offices in bar associations and committees thereof, in legal and
scientific societies and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law
lists; the names and addresses of references; and, with their written consent, the
names of clients regularly represented."

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. He may likewise have his name
listed in a telephone directory but not under a designation of special branch of law.

Verily, taking into consideration the nature and contents of the advertisements for
which respondent is being taken to task, which even includes a quotation of the
fees charged by said respondent corporation for services rendered, we find and so
hold that the same definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the
above-mentioned exceptions.

In sum, it is undoubtedly a misbehavior on the part of the lawyer, subject to

disciplinary action, to advertise his services except in allowable instances or to aid a
layman in the unauthorized practice of law. Considering that Atty. Rogelio P.
Nogales, who is the prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of The
Legal Clinic, Inc. is a member of the Philippine Bar, he is hereby reprimanded, with
a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts which are involved in this
proceeding will be dealt with more severely.