ULEP v. Legal Aid Clinic

MAURICIO C.
ULEP, petitioner,
vs.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC., respondent.
Facts:
Petitioner prays this Court "to order the respondent to cease and desist from issuing
advertisements relative to or similar to secret marriages and Guam 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 above reproduced 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.
In its answer to the petition, 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.
The IBP accordingly declares in no uncertain terms its opposition to respondent's act of
establishing a "legal clinic" and of concomitantly advertising the same through newspaper publications.
The use of the name "The Legal Clinic, Inc." gives the impression that respondent corporation is
being operated by lawyers and that it renders legal services.
"The Legal Clinic, Inc." Such a name, it is respectfully submitted connotes the rendering of legal
services for legal problems, just like a medical clinic connotes medical services for medical
problems. More importantly, the term "Legal Clinic" connotes lawyers, as the term medical clinic
connotes doctors.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it
constitutes practice of law.
2. Whether or not such advertisement is allowed.
Ruling:
Yes. The services offered by the respondent constitutes practice of law.

The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can neither be
seriously considered nor sustained.
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and
lawyers. Its contention that such function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real.
With its attorneys and so-called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies
of the law and advise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken as may be provided for by
said law. That is what its advertisements represent and for the which services it will consequently charge
and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential definition of "practice of law." Such a
conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent corporation does not represent clients in
court since law practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not limited merely giving legal advice,
contract drafting and so forth.
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. 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.

ULEP v. Legal Aid Clinic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ULEP v. Legal Aid Clinic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MAURICIO C.

2. Whether or not such advertisement is allowed.

Yes. The services offered by the respondent constitutes practice of law.

You might also like