PALE Canon 7-9 Case Digests
PALE Canon 7-9 Case Digests
THE LAWYERS AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the employees in a retirement plan, even if the plan is
integrity and dignity of the legal profession and based in whole or in part, on a profit-sharing
support the activities of the integrated bar. arrangement..
FACTS: FACTS:
Atty. Ireneo L. Torres and Mrs. Natividad Celestino Complainant Cerina B. Likong executed a deed of
charged Atty. Jose Concepcion Javier for malpractice, gross assignment assigning to Geesnell L. Yap pension checks
misconduct in office as an attorney and/or violation of the which she regularly receives from the US government as a
lawyer’s oath for employing statements and remarks on his widow of a US pensioner. The deed of assignment states
pleadings which are false, unsubstantiated, with malicious that the same shall be irrevocable until her loan is fully
imputation, abusive, offensive and improper with the paid. Cerina likewise executed a special power of attorney
character of an attorney as a quasi-judicial officer. authorizing Yap to get her pension checks from the post
Atty. Javier professes that he was angry while he office.
was preparing his pleadings considering that his wife was About three months after the execution of the SPA,
included to the burglary exposed in the present case. Also, Cerina informed the post office that she was revoking the
he invokes that those statements he made are privileged SPA. Yap filed a complaint for injunction against Cerina.
communication, it forming part of a judicial proceeding. Respondent Alexander H. Lim appeared as counsel for Yap
while Attys. Roland B. Inting and Erico B. Aumentado
ISSUE: appeared for Cerina.
Whether or not Atty. Javier is administratively liable for the Cerina and Yap filed a joint motion, which does not
alleged offensive statements he made in his pleadings bear the signatures of Cerina's counsel, to allow the Yap to
withdraw the pension checks. They likewise entered into a
HELD: compromise agreement without the participation of
It is well entrenched in Philippine jurisprudence Cerina's counsel. In the compromise agreement, it was
that for reasons of public policy, utterances made in the stated that complainant Cerina admitted an obligation to
course of judicial proceedings, including all kinds of Yap and that they agreed that the amount would be paid in
pleadings, petitions and motions, are absolutely privileged monthly installments.
so long as they are pertinent and relevant to the subject Cerina filed a complaint for disbarment, alleging
inquiry, however false or malicious they may be. A matter, that in all the motions, she was prevented from seeking
however, to which the privilege does not extend must be so assistance, advise and signature of any of her two lawyers
palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter of the as she was advised by Atty. Lim that it was not necessary
controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its for her to consult her lawyers under the pretense that: (a)
irrelevance or impropriety. That matter alleged in a this could only jeopardize the settlement; (b) she would
pleading need not be in every case material to the issues only be incurring enormous expense if she consulted a new
presented by the pleadings. It must, however, be lawyer; (c) respondent was assisting her anyway; (d) she
legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent to the subject had nothing to worry about the documents foisted upon
of the controversy that it may become the subject of her to sign; (e) complainant need not come to court
inquiry in the course of the trial. afterwards to save her time; and in any event respondent
Clearly, Atty. Javier’s primordial reason for the already took care of everything. She alleged that she was
offensive remark stated in his pleadings was his emotional prevented from exhibiting fully her case by means of fraud,
reaction in view of the fact that herein Complainant was in deception and some other form of LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY.
a legal dispute with his wife. This excuse cannot be GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|
sustained; that the Atty. Javier is representing his wife is 14 mendacity practiced on her by Atty. Lim who,
not at all an excuse. fraudulently or without authority, assumed to represent
In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, complainant and connived in her defeat.
a lawyer’s language must be dignified and choice of Atty. Lim argued that Cerina‘s counsel had
language is important in the preparation of pleadings. In abandoned her and it was upon her request that he made
the assertion of his client’s rights, a lawyer — even one the compromise agreement. Atty. Lim states that he first
gifted with superior intellect — is enjoined to rein up his instructed Cerina to notify her lawyers but was informed
temper. that her lawyer had abandoned her since she could not pay
his attorney's fees. Regalado Bagares filed a Supplemental Motion for
The compromise agreement prepared by Reconsideration where they posited their charge of
respondent increased Cerina‘s debt to Yap and the terms plagiarism claiming that "in this controversy, the evidence
contained therein are grossly prejudicial to Cerina. bears out the fact not only of extensive plagiarism but also
of twisting the true intents of the plagiarized sources by
ISSUE: the ponencia to suit the arguments of the assailed
WON Atty. Lim is guilty of misconduct under the Code of Judgment for denying the Petition. A statement entitled
Professional Responsibility. "Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the
University of the Philippines College of Law on the
HELD: Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the
Yes. Atty. Lim was suspended from the practice of Supreme Court" was submitted by Dean Leonen to the
law for 1 year for violating Rule 8.02 of the Code of Court.
Professional Responsibility, constituting malpractice and The Ethics Committee was given a copy of the
grave misconduct. signed UP Law Faculty Statement that showed on the
signature pages the names of the full roster of the UP Law
RATIO: Faculty, 81 faculty members in all. Indubitable from the
Atty. Lim prevented Cerina from informing her actual signed copy of the Statement was that only 37 of the
lawyers by giving her the reasons enumerated in the 81 faculty members appeared to have signed the same.
complaint. There is no showing that Atty. Lim even tried to However, the 37 actual signatories to the Statement did not
inform opposing counsel of the compromise agreement. include former Supreme Court Associate Justice Vicente V.
Neither is there any showing that Atty. Lim informed the Mendoza as represented in the previous copies of the
trial court of the alleged abandonment of Cerina by her Statement submitted by Dean Leonen and Atty. Roque. It
counsel.Instead, even assuming that she was really also appeared that Atty. Miguel R. Armovit signed the
abandoned by her counsel, Atty. Lim saw an opportunity to Statement although his name was not included among the
take advantage of the situation, and the result was the signatories in the previous copies submitted to the Court.
execution of the compromise agreement which is grossly Dean Leonen was directed to show cause why he
and patently disadvantageous and prejudicial to Cerina. should not be disciplinarily dealt with for violation of
Undoubtedly, Atty. Lim's conduct is unbecoming a member Canon 10 for submitting, for the consideration of the Court
of the legal profession. en banc, a dummy which is not a true and faithful
The Code of Professional Responsibility states: reproduction of the UP Law Faculty Statement.
Rule 8.02 — A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, Dean Leonen‘s predicament is the fact that he did
encroach upon the professional employment of another not from the beginning submit the signed copy, Restoring
lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear Integrity I, to the Court and, instead, submitted Restoring
or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those Integrity II with its retyped or "reformatted" signature
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. pages. It would turn out, according to Dean Leonen‘s
account, that there were errors in the retyping of the
4 - Re: Letter Of The Up Law Faculty Entitled "Restoring signature pages due to lapses of his unnamed staff.
Integrity: A Statement By The Faculty Of The University "Restoring Integrity I" bears the entire roster of
Of The Philippines College Of Law On The Allegations the faculty of the UP College of Law in its signing pages,
Of Plagiarism And Misrepresentation In The Supreme and the actual signatures of the thirty-seven (37) faculty
Court (2011) members subject of the Show Cause Resolution while
"Restoring Integrity II" does not bear any actual physical
FACTS: signature, but which reflects as signatories the names of
For disposition of the Court are the various thirty-seven (37) members of the faculty with the notation
submissions of the 37 respondent law professors in "(SGD.)".
response to the Resolution directing them to show cause In his Compliance, Dean Leonen essentially denies
why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar that Restoring Integrity II was not a true and faithful
for violation of specific provisions of the Code of reproduction of the actual signed copy, Restoring Integrity
Professional Responsibility. I, because looking at the text or the body, there were no
The ponencia of Associate Justice Mariano del differences between the two. He attempts to downplay the
Castillo in Vinuya, et al. v. Executive Secretary was discrepancies in the signature pages of the two versions of
promulgated. The counsel for Vinuya, et al. (the "Malaya the Statement (i.e., Restoring Integrity I and Restoring
Lolas"), Attys. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Atty. Romel Integrity II) by claiming that it is but expected in "live"
public manifestos with dynamic and evolving pages as explanation that there was no misrepresentation when he
more and more signatories add their imprimatur thereto. allowed at least one person to be indicated as having
He believes that he had not committed any violation of actually signed the Statement when all he had was a verbal
Canon 10 for he did not mislead nor misrepresent to the communication of an intent to sign. In the case of Justice
Court the contents of the Statement or the identities of the Mendoza, what he had was only hearsay information that
UP Law faculty members who agreed with, or expressed the former intended to sign the Statement. If Dean Leonen
their desire to be signatories to, the Statement. was truly determined to observe candor and truthfulness
in his dealings with the Court, the court sees no reason
ISSUE: why he could not have waited until all the professors who
WON Dean Leonen violated Canon 10, Rules 10.02 of the indicated their desire to sign the Statement had in fact
Code of Professional Responsibility. signed before transmitting the Statement to the Court as a
duly signed document. If it was truly impossible to secure
HELD: some signatures, such as that of Justice Mendoza who had
Yes. In due consideration of Dean Leonen‘s to leave for abroad, then Dean Leonen should have just
professed good intentions, the Court deems it sufficient to resigned himself to the signatures that he was able to
admonish the former for failing to observe full candor and secure.
honesty in his dealings with the Court as required under
Canon 10. 5 - Pobre v. Sen. Defensor-Santiago (2009)
RATIO: FACTS:
CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith JBC through public invitation published the soon
to the court. vacant position of Chief of Justice, hence Santiago was one
of the applicant but unfortunately informed by the JBC that
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or only incumbent associate justice would qualify the
misrepresent the contents of paper, the language or the position. During her privilege speech on the Congress to
argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or wit: “x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the
authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated,
rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like
a fact that which has not been proved. throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of
To begin with, the Court said that live public this nature. I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief
manifesto or not, the Statement was formally submitted to Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the
this Court at a specific point in time and it should reflect Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the position
accurately its signatories at that point. The value of the [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I
Statement as a UP Law Faculty Statement lies precisely in would rather be in another environment but not in the
the identities of the persons who have signed it, since the Supreme Court of idiots. x x x”
Statement‘s persuasive authority mainly depends on the Antero J. Pobre in his sworn letter/complaint
reputation and stature of the persons who have endorsed invites the attention of the court and asks that disbarment
the same. proceedings or other disciplinary actions be taken against
Dean Leonen has not offered any explanation why the lady senator.
he deviated from this practice with his submission to the
Court of Restoring Integrity II. There was nothing to ISSUE: Does the disbarment proceeding and other
prevent the dean from submitting Restoring Integrity I to disciplinary actions should be taken against the senator?
this Court even with its blanks and unsigned portions. Yet,
Dean Leonen deliberately chose to submit to this Court the HELD:
facsimile that did not contain the actual signatures and his No, because the delivery of speech was conducted while
silence on the reason therefor is in itself a display of lack of the Congress is in session and therefore she is covered
candor. Contrary to Dean Leonen‘s proposition, that is with the state immunity provided in our Constitution Art.
precisely tantamount to making it appear to the Court that VI Sec.11 of the Constitution. Indeed, her privilege
a person or persons participated in an act when such speech is not actionable criminally or in a disciplinary
person or persons did not. proceeding under the Rules of Court. The plea of Senator
The Court is surprised that someone like Dean Santiago for the dismissal of the complaint for disbarment
Leonen, with his reputation for perfection and stringent or disciplinary action is well taken. Indeed, her privilege
standards of intellectual honesty, could proffer the speech is not actionable criminally or in a disciplinary
proceeding under the Rules of Court.
The disciplinary actions falls under the Congress HELD:
provided in The Rules of the Senate contains a provision Regardless of whether the written contract
on Unparliamentary Acts and Language that enjoins a between respondent and complainant is actually one of
Senator from using, under any circumstance, offensive sale with pacto de retro or of equitable mortgage,
or improper language against another Senator or respondent’s actuations in his transaction with
against any public institution. Senate President had not complainant, as well as in the present administrative cases,
apparently called her to order, let alone referred the matter clearly show a disregard for the highest standards of legal
to the Senate Ethics Committee for appropriate proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing
disciplinary action, as the Rules dictates under such required from lawyers, for which respondent should be
circumstance. The lady senator clearly violated the rules of held administratively liable.
her own chamber. Therefore the disbarment case When respondent was admitted to the legal
proceeding was DISMISSED. profession, he took an oath where he undertook to “obey
the laws,” “do no falsehood,” and “conduct [him]self as a
6 - Saladaga v. Atty. Astorga (2014) lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and
discretion.”18 He gravely violated his oath.
VIOLATION: breach of the Lawyer’s Oath; unlawful, The Investigating Commissioner correctly found,
dishonest, and deceitful conduct; and disrespect for the and the IBP Board of Governors rightly agreed, that
Court and causing undue delay of these cases respondent caused the ambiguity or vagueness in the
“Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase” as he was the
PENALTY: SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a one who prepared or drafted the said instrument.
period of two (2) years, reckoned from receipt of this Respondent could have simply denominated the
Decision instrument as a deed of mortgage and referred to himself
and complainant as “mortgagor” and “mortgagee,”
FACTS: respectively, rather than as “vendor a retro” and “vendee a
Accused representing himself as the owner of a retro.” If only respondent had been more circumspect
parcel of land known as Lot No. 7661 of the Baybay and careful in the drafting and preparation of the deed,
Cadastre, mortgaged the same to the Rural Bank of then the controversy between him and complainant
Albuera, Albuera, Leyte, within the jurisdiction of this could have been avoided or, at the very least, easily
Honorable Court, knowing fully well that the possessor and resolved. His imprecise and misleading wording of the
owner at that time was private complainant Florencio said deed on its face betrayed lack of legal competence
Saladaga by virtue of a Pacto de Retro Sale which accused on his part. He thereby fell short of his oath to
executed in favor of private complainant on 2nd December, “conduct [him]self as a lawyer according to the best of
1981, without first redeeming/repurchasing the same. [his] knowledge and discretion.”
[P]rivate complainant knowing of accused[’s] unlawful act Respondent dealt with complainant with bad faith,
only on or about the last week of February, 1991 when the falsehood, and deceit when he entered into the “Deed of
rural bank dispossessed him of the property, the mortgage Sale with Right to Repurchase” dated December 2, 1981
having been foreclosed, private complainant thereby with the latter. He made it appear that the property was
suffered damages and was prejudiced by accused[’s] covered by TCT No. T-662 under his name, even giving
unlawful transaction and misrepresentation. complainant the owner’s copy of the said certificate of title,
Complainant likewise instituted the instant when the truth is that the said TCT had already been
administrative cases against respondent by filing before cancelled some nine years earlier by TCT No. T-3211 in the
this Court an Affidavit-Complaint dated January 28, 1997 name of PNB. He did not even care to correct the wrong
and Supplemental Complaint dated February 27, 1997, statement in the deed when he was subsequently issued a
which were docketed as A.C. No. 4697 and A.C. No. 4728, new copy of TCT No. T-7235 on January 4, 1982, or barely a
respectively. In both complaints, complainant sought the month after the execution of the said deed. All told,
disbarment of respondent. respondent clearly committed an act of gross dishonesty
Respondent denied that his agreement with and deceit against complainant.
complainant was a pacto de retro sale. He claimed that it Respondent’s infractions are aggravated by the
was an equitable mortgage and that, if only complainant fact that he has already been imposed a disciplinary
rendered an accounting of his benefits from the produce of sanction before. In Nunñ ez v. Atty. Astorga,respondent was
the land, the total amount would have exceeded held liable for conduct unbecoming an attorney for which
P15,000.00. he was fined P2,000.00.
Capistrano on the status of her case. In response, the latter
made her believe that the two cases were already filed
before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City and
waiting notice of hearing. Sometime in July 2005, when she
could hardly reach Atty. Capistrano, she verified her case
from the Clerk of Court of Malabon and discovered that
7 - Spouses Lopez v. Atty. Limos (2016) while the case of Tuparan had been filed on January 27,
2005, no petition has yet been filed for her.
FACTS:
Complainants filed a disbarment case on Atty. ISSUE:
Limos for violation of 18.03 of the CPR, as she neglected Whether or not Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano violated the Code
the legal matter entrusted to her by not filing the adoption of Professional Responsibility
case - for almost a year until complainants finally
withdrew their documents from respondent and opted to HELD:
have the filing of the case handled by another lawyer. This court finds that Atty. Capistrano committed
Worse, respondent refused to return the amount of acts in violation of his sworn duty as a member of the bar.
P75,000.00 representing legal fees paid by complainants to In his Manifestation and Petition for Review, he himself
her. admitted liability for his failure to act on Suzette’s case as
well as to account and return the funds she entrusted to
ISSUE: him. He only pleaded for the mitigation of his penalty citing
Whether or not respondent should be held the lack of intention to breach his lawyer’s oath; that this is
administratively liable for violating the Rule 18.03 of the his first offense; and that his profession is the only means
CPR, of his and his family’s livelihood. He also prayed that the
adjudged amount of PhP140,000.00 be reduced to
HELD: PhP73,500.00 representing the amount of PhP78,500.00
Respondent's acts constitute a flagrant violation of he received less his payment of the sum of PhP5,000.00.
Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, to wit: Consequently, Commissioner Quisumbing and the IBP-CBD
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter Board of Governors correctly recommended the
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection appropriate penalty of one year suspension from the
therewith shall render him liable. practice of law for violating the pertinent provisions of the
Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is Canons of Professional Responsibility. As stated under
duty-bound to serve the latter with competence, and to Canon Law,
attend to such client's cause with diligence, care, and CANON 16 – A lawyer shall not hold in trust all moneys and
devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He properties of his client that may come into his possession.
owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of RULE 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or
the trust and confidence reposed upon him. Therefore, a property collected or received for or from the client.
lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his RULE 16.02 – A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must separate and apart from his own and those of others kept
be held administratively liable, as in this case. by him.
Canon 18- A lawyer shall serve his client with competence
8 - Del Mundo v. Atty. Capistrano (2012) and diligence.
RULE 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
FACTS:
therewith shall render him liable.
On January 8, 2005, Suzette and her friend Ricky S.
RULE 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
Tuparan (Tuparan) engaged the legal services of Atty.
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable
Capistrano to handle the judicial declaration of nullity of
time to the client’s request for information.
their respective marriages allegedly for a fee of
Furthermore, a lawyer is obliged to hold in trust
PhP140,000.00 each. On the same date, a Special Retainer
money of his client that may come to his possession. As
Agreement was entered into by and between Suzette and
trustee of such funds, he is bound to keep them separate
Atty. Capistrano which required an acceptance fee of
and apart from his own. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a
PhP30,000.00, appearance fee of PhP2,500.00 per hearing
specific purpose such as for the filing and processing of a
and another PhP2,500.00 per pleading. Moreover for every
case if not utilized, must be returned immediately upon
payment that Suzette made, she would inquire from Atty.
demand. Failure to return gives rise to a presumption that In the early part of 2006, complainants engaged the
he has misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed services of Atty. Estebal to assist each of them in securing
on him. And the conversion of funds entrusted to him tourist visas to the United States (U.S.). Toward this end,on
constitutes gross violation of professional ethics and January 24, 2006, Campos and Atty. Estebal entered into a
betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. Service Contract stipulating an acceptance/service fee of
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Arnel C. Php200, 000.00 exclusive of out-of-pocket expenses such
Capistrano, having clearly violated Canons 16 and 18 of the as tickets, filing fees, and application fees; and that in case
Code of Professional Responsibility, is SUSPENDED from no visa is issued, Campos is entitled to a refund of what has
the practice of law for one year with a stern warning that a been actually paid less 7% thereof Campos paid Atty.
repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with Estebal the sum of Php150, 000.00. For their part, Batac
more severely. He is ORDERED to return to Suzette Del and Carpiogave Atty. Estebal the amounts of Php75, 000.00
Mundo the full amount of PhP73,500.00 within 30 days and Phpl20, 000.00, respectively.
from notice hereof and DIRECTED to submit to the Court Complainants claimed that despite receipt of their
proof of such payment. monies, Atty. Estebal failed to apply or secure for them the
U.S. tourist visas that he promised. Thus, they demanded
9 - Spouses Jacinto v. Atty. Bangot, Jr. (2016) for the return of their monies. Atty. Estebal, however, failed
to return the amount despite repeated demands. Hence,
FACTS: they filed this Complaint praying that Atty. Estebal be
Complainants Emilio and Alicia Jacinto filed an suspended or disbarred from the practice of law, and that
administrative case against Atty. Emelie P. Bangot, Jr. for he be directed to return their monies.
the latter's unjust and dishonest treatment of them as his Atty. Estebal posited that complainants’ demand
clients. Atty. Bangot executed a MOA between him and the for the return or refund of their money has no factual or
Complainant to impress that his supposed attorney's fees legal basis at all, especially because he had invested
would be paid on contingent basis, however, the MOA considerable time, talent and energy in the processing of
indicates that the payment thru real property is being complainants’ tourist visa applications with the U.S.
made immediately effective upon execution of the Embassy.
agreement. Investigating Commissioner Jose I. De la Rama, Jr.
There is also apparent disproportion between the recommended that Atty. Estebal be suspended from the
amount of attorney's fees and the effort or service already practice of law for six (6) months for violating Canons
performed by him. 15,16 and 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility;
moreover, it was recommended that Atty. Estebal be
ISSUE: directed to refund the amount of Php330,000.00 and to
Did the respondent violate his ethical duties as a member retain the amount of Php15, 000.00 as his attorney’s fees.
of the Bar in his dealings with the complainants? On December 29, 2012, the IBP Board of
Governors issued Resolution affirming with modification
HELD: the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation. In fine,
The court held that the respondent grossly the IBP Board of Governors resolved to delete the
violated his Lawyer's Oath and his ethical duties as an recommended penalty of suspension and reduce the
attorney because he did not observe candor and fairness in amount refunded from Php330,000.00 to Php300,000.00.
his dealings with his clients.
A lawyer shall observe candor, honesty and ISSUE:
fairness in dealing with his clients, and shall only charge Whether or not Atty. Estebal is guilty of professional
fair and reasonable fees for his legal services. He should misconduct for violating the pertinent provisions of the
not excessively estimate the value of his professional Code of Professional Responsibility?
services. In drawing up the terms of his professional
engagement, he should not practice deceit. The clients are HELD:
entitled to rescind the written agreement on his Respondent clearly violated Canons 15, 16 and 20
professional fees if the terms thereof contravened the true of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
agreement of the parties. CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS
10 - Campos, Jr. v. Atty. Estebal (2016) AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.