Court litigation is largely controlled by statutory and procedural rules.

In court litigation, significant expenses are devoted to pre-trial discovery processes,

such as written interrogatories and depositions of witnesses.
in many courts, no individual judge is assigned to a case and, therefore, multiple
judges may be involved in adjudicating pre-trial disputes. The judge is assigned by
the court without input from the parties.
When in court, judges decisions are constrained by statutory and case law and the
conduct of the trial is governed by established rules of evidence.
trial court verdicts are not easily reversed, judges sometime make mistakes and the
ability to request a review of a decision by an appellate panel is an important
procedural safeguard.

plaintiffs counsel makes the first move. The party making the first
move in a competitive event, whether playing the white pieces in
chess or serving in a tennis match, enjoys a distinct tactical
advantage.
The party making the first move can force the adversary into a
defensive posture. Maintaining this advantage places pressure on
the opponent, controls the action, and reduces response time and
options. Maintaining the litigation advantage is counsels overriding
objective throughout a products liability lawsuit.
The proper handling of a products liability lawsuit must build on the
plaintiffs inherent advantage of going first. You must dictate the
action by controlling the timing and sequence of discovery, thereby
placing the defendant manufacturer in a defensive/reactive position
throughout the entire lawsuit. If you do this, the prospects for a
successful resolutionby verdict or settlementare immeasurably
enhanced.

Ulep case

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 lawyers 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. 42
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 the dignity or standing of the profession. 43
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. 44
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 time
definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the above-mentioned
exceptions.

223 SCRA 378 42 SCAD 287 Legal Ethics Advertisement in the Legal Profession
Practice of Law

In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to
Nogales was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the
services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal
Clinic because of the latters advertisements which contain the following:

SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
8:30am 6:00pm
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal
Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Nonquota Res. & Special Retirees Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina
Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina
Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal
Problems in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal
Clinic is composed of specialists that can take care of a clients problem no matter how
complicated it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion
situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are specialists in
various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and
criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists
are backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys.

As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence
in the US which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that
besides, the advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The
Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such
is allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is
not allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered
include various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services
are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of
lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the
services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be
performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who
is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
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.
The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyers advertisement of his
talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his
talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the
advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous
marriage, and other circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is
highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. 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. The Supreme Court also enumerated the following as allowed forms of
advertisement:
1.

Advertisement in a reputable law list

2.

Use of ordinary simple professional card

3.

Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization

egal Ethics Practice of Law

In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission on
Elections. His appointment was affirmed by the Commission on Appointments.
Monsods appointment was opposed by Renato Cayetano on the ground that he does
not qualify for he failed to meet the Constitutional requirement which provides that the
chairman of the COMELEC should have been engaged in the practice law for at least
ten years.
Monsods track record as a lawyer:
1.

Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%.

2.

Immediately after passing, worked in his fathers law firm for one year.

3.

Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he had a degree in economics and
held various positions in various foreign corporations.

4.

In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for various local
corporations until 1986.

5.

In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.

ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the COMELEC. What
constitutes practice of law?
HELD: Yes. Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyermanager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a
lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least
ten years.
As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to court appearances.
The members of the bench and bar and the informed laymen such as businessmen,
know that in most developed societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted
in law offices than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do both litigation
and non-litigation work also know that in most cases they find themselves spending

more time doing what is loosely described as business counseling than in trying cases.
In the course of a working day the average general practitioner wig engage in a number
of legal tasks, each involving different legal doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal
institutions, clients, and other interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of
lawyers in specialized practice wig usually perform at least some legal services outside
their specialty. By no means will most of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is
one of the relatively rare types a litigator who specializes in this work to the exclusion
of much else. Instead, the work will require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of
traditional lawyer skills of client counseling, advice-giving, document drafting, and
negotiation.

Read full text

Justice Padilla dissenting:
Monsod did not practice law. Justice Padilla emphasized the following criteria in
determining what constitutes practice of law:
1. Habituality. The term practice of law implies customarily or habitually holding ones
self out to the public as a lawyer (People vs. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109 citing State v.
Boyen, 4 S.E. 522, 98 N.C. 644) such as when one sends a circular announcing the
establishment of a law office for the general practice of law (U.S. v. Ney Bosque, 8 Phil.
146), or when one takes the oath of office as a lawyer before a notary public, and files a
manifestation with the Supreme Court informing it of his intention to practice law in all
courts in the country (People v. De Luna, 102 Phil. 968).
Practice is more than an isolated appearance for it consists in frequent or customary
action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is a habitual exercise
(People v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109 citing State v. Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan, 864).
2. Compensation. Practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in
the active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional
services are available to the public for compensation, as a service of his livelihood or in
consideration of his said services. (People v. Villanueva, supra). Hence, charging for
services such as preparation of documents involving the use of legal knowledge and
skill is within the term practice of law (Ernani Pao, Bar Reviewer in Legal and Judicial
Ethics, 1988 ed., p. 8 citing People v. Peoples Stockyards State Bank, 176 N.B. 901)
and, one who renders an opinion as to the proper interpretation of a statute, and
receives pay for it, is to that extent, practicing law (Martin, supra, p. 806 citing
Mendelaun v. Gilbert and Barket Mfg. Co., 290 N.Y.S. 462) If compensation is expected,

all advice to clients and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law; are
practicing law. (Elwood Fitchette et al., v. Arthur C. Taylor, 94A-L.R. 356-359)
3. Application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure which calls for legal
knowledge, training and experience is within the term practice of law. (Martin supra)
4. Attorney-client relationship. Engaging in the practice of law presupposes the
existence of lawyer-client relationship. Hence, where a lawyer undertakes an activity
which requires knowledge of law but involves no attorney-client relationship, such as
teaching law or writing law books or articles, he cannot be said to be engaged in the
practice of his profession or a lawyer (Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1989 ed., p. 30).
Monsod did not habitually practice law. It may be granted that he performed activities
which are related to the practice of law like drafting legal documents and giving legal
advice, but he only did so as isolated incidents.

ustice Gutierrez dissenting:

Monsod did not practice law save for the one year he spent in his fathers law office.
The Chairman of the COMELEC should have engaged in the practice of law for at least
ten years. The deliberate choice of words shows that the practice envisioned is active
and regular, not isolated, occasional, accidental, intermittent, incidental, seasonal, or
extemporaneous. To be engaged in an activity for ten years requires committed
participation in something which is the result of ones decisive choice. It means that one
is occupied and involved in the enterprise; one is obliged or pledged to carry it out with
intent and attention during the ten-year period.
What kind of Judges or Justices will we have if their main occupation is selling real
estate, managing a business corporation, serving in fact-finding committee, working in
media, or operating a farm with no active involvement in the law, whether in
Government or private practice, except that in one joyful moment in the distant past,
they happened to pass the bar examinations?
There is nothing in Monsods track record which will show that he Monsod has given the
law enough attention or a certain degree of commitment and participation as would
support in all sincerity and candor the claim of having engaged in its practice for at least
ten years. Instead of working as a lawyer, he has lawyers working for him. Instead of
giving receiving that legal advice of legal services, he was the one adviced and those
services as an executive but not as a lawyer.

Tan vs. Sabandal, 206 SCRA 473 (1992)

DOCTRINES:
The practice of law is not a matter of right.
No moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness or
candor.
FACTS:
Respondent Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was denied to take his
oath in view of the finding of the Court that he was guilty of unauthorized practice of law.
Since then, he had filed numerous petitions for him to be allowed to take his lawyer's
oath.
Acting to his 1989 petition, the Court directed the executive judge of the province where
Sabandal is domiciled to submit a comment on respondent's moral fitness to be a
member of the Bar. In compliance therewith, the executive judge stated in his comment
that he is not aware of any acts committed by the respondent as would disqualify him to
from admission to the Bar. However, he added that respondent has a pending civil case
before his court for cancellation/reversion proceedings, in which respondent, then
working as Land Investigator of the Bureau of Lands, is alleged to have secured a free
patent and later a certificate of title to a parcel of land which, upon investigation, turned
out to be a swampland and not susceptible of acquisition under a free patent, and which
he later mortgaged to the bank. The mortgage was later foreclosed and the land
subsequently sold at public auction and respondent has not redeemed the land since
then.
The case was however been settled through amicable settlement. The said amicable
settlement canceled the OCT under Free Patent in the name of Sabandal and his
mortgage in the bank; provided for the surrender of the certificate of title to the RD for
proper annotation; reverted to the mass of public domain the land covered by the
aforesaid certificate of title with respondent refraining from exercising acts of possession
or ownership over the said land. Respondent also paid the bank a certain sum for the
loan and interest.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent may be admitted to the practice of law considering that
he already submitted three (3) testimonials regarding his good moral character, and his
pending civil case has been terminated.
HELD:
His petition must be denied.
Time and again, it has been held that practice of law is not a matter of right. It is a
privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are
also known to possess good moral character.

It should be recalled that respondent worked as Land Investigator at the Bureau of

Lands. Said employment facilitated his procurement of the free patent title over the
property which he could not but have known was a public land. This was manipulative
on his part and does not speak well of his moral character. It is a manifestation of gross
dishonesty while in the public service, which cannot be erased by the termination of the
case and where no determination of guilt or innocence was made because the suit has
been compromised. This is a sad reflection of his sense of honor and fair dealings.
Moreover, his failure to reveal to the Court the pendency of the civil case for Reversion
filed against him during the period that he was submitting several petitions and motions
for reconsiderations reveal his lack of candor and truthfulness.
Although, the term "good moral character" admits of broad dimensions, it has been
defined as "including at least common dishonesty." It has also been held that no moral
qualification for membership is more important than truthfulness or candor.
TAN V. SABANDAL (170 SCRA 211 2/10/89FA C T S : R e s p o n d e n t N i c o l a s
E l . S a b a n d a l p a s s e d t h e 1 9 7 8 B a r E x a m i n a t i o n s but because of
pending administrative complaints filed against himregarding instances
when he called himself attorney knowing full wellthat he was not yet
admitted to the Bar, he was not allowed to take thelawyers
oath. Oppositors evidence sufficiently show that respondent hadheld himself
out as an attorney in the agrarian, civil and criminal casesand he was paid
for his legal servicesHe then filed a petition to be admitted to the
Philippine Bar andto be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys. In a resolution
promulgatedon November 29, 1983 respondent petition
was denied. Respondent asks forforgiveness, understanding and
benevolence and promises that, if given achance to be a member of the Phil.
Bar, he would always be faithful to thelawyers oath and conduct himself in
an upright
manner.H E L D : W h e t h e r
o r
n o t
r e s p o n
d e n t
s h a l l
b e
a d m i t t e d
t o
t h e P
hilippine Bar rests to a great extent in the sound discretion of theCourt. An
applicant must satisfy the Court that he is a person of goodmoral character,
fit and proper to practice law. Sabandal hereby allowedto take the lawyers
oathTan vs. Sabandal, 206 SCRA 473 (1992)DOCTRINES:The practice of law
is not a matter of right.No moral qualification for bar membership is more
important thantruthfulness or candor.FACTS:Respondent Sabandal passed
the 1978 Bar Examinations but was denied to takehis oath in view of the
finding of the Court that he was guilty ofunauthorized practice of law. Since
then, he had filed numerous petitionsfor him to be allowed to take his
lawyer's oath.Acting to his 1989 petition, the Court directed the executive

judge of theprovince where Sabandal is domiciled to submit a comment on

respondent'smoral fitness to be a member of the Bar. In compliance
therewith, theexecutive judge stated in his comment that he is not aware of
any actscommitted by the respondent as would disqualify him to from
admission tothe Bar. However, he added that respondent has a pending civil
case beforehis court for cancellation/reversion proceedings, in
which respondent, thenworking as Land Investigator of the Bureau of Lands,
is alleged to havesecured a free patent and later a certificate of title to a
parcel of landwhich, upon investigation, turned out to be a swampland and
not susceptibleof acquisition under a free patent, and which he later
mortgaged to thebank. The mortgage was later foreclosed and the land
subsequently sold atpublic auction and respondent has not redeemed
the land since then.The case was however been settled through amicable
settlement. The saidamicable settlement canceled the OCT under Free
Patent in the name of

Solo practitioner

Sole practitioners, also known as solo practitioners, have greater freedom and flexibility
than attorneys who practice in firms. Although the idea of being your own boss is likely
attractive, going it alone carries additional responsibilities. Attorneys who work in
established law firms don't have to worry about marketing, budgeting or lack of support
staff -- firms typically take care of all these things. However, if the independence of
practicing solo appeals to you, you might even find the challenge of creating a viable
practice enjoyable.
Office Organization
You must be organized if you want your solo practice to succeed. You can't be efficient
without organization, and efficiency is crucial for sole practitioners juggling several tasks
at once. Develop a filing system that makes it easy to distinguish between closed cases,
current cases and different types of cases. Create standard forms for each of your
practice areas -- if you practice more than one -- and save each type of pleading on
your computer and backup disk. By saving your pleadings, you'll have customizable
templates for future use. Have a reliable backup system for all computer files. Purchase
a dependable all-in-one laser printer, copier, scanner and fax machine, and always keep
a backup supply of toner and paper on hand. (
eferrals and Support Staf
Potential clients frequently contact a state bar association when seeking an
attorney, so ask your bar association to place you on its referral list. It's also

helpful to ask other attorneys for referrals when they encounter clients in
need of someone with your expertise. With support staff, you'll have more
free time to devote to building your business. However, it's likely you won't
have room in your budget for a permanent legal assistant until your practice
is established. You may, however, find low-cost or volunteer legal assistants
through local law schools. For example, Arizona State University and the
University of Arizona have law student work programs through which sole
practitioners can get short-term assistance in legal research and drafting.
(ref 4,5)
Additional Considerations
The cost of hiring a web hosting and design company isn't prohibitive. But, if
your budget is too tight -- and you have knowledge and patience -- you can
create your own website by using a free website builder. It's important to
note, however, that if you don't have a solid understanding of search engine
optimization, you're likely better off waiting until you can afford to hire a
professional who does. Otherwise, you'll waste valuable effort and time
creating a website few people see. Remember that networking is critical to
building your practice. Get involved with your community, and whenever
possible, attend events involving local business owners and community
leaders. (ref 2)
TAN V. SABANDAL (170 SCRA 211 2/10/89FAC T S : R e s p o n d e n t N i c o l a s E l . S a b a n d a l
p a s s e d t h e 1 9 7 8 B a r E x a m i n a t i o n s but because of pending administrative complaints
filed against himregarding instances when he called himself attorney knowing full wellthat he
was not yet admitted to the Bar, he was not allowed to take thelawyers
oath. Oppositors evidence sufficiently show that respondent hadheld himself out as an attorney
in the agrarian, civil and criminal casesand he was paid for his legal servicesHe then filed a
petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar andto be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys. In a
resolution promulgatedon November 29, 1983 respondent petition was denied. Respondent asks
forforgiveness, understanding and benevolence and promises that, if given achance to be a
member of the Phil. Bar, he would always be faithful to thelawyers oath and conduct himself in
an upright
manner.H E L D : W h e t h e r
o r
n o t
r e s p o n d e
n t
s h a l l
b e
a d m i t t e d
t o
t h e Philippine Bar
rests to a great extent in the sound discretion of theCourt. An applicant must satisfy the
Court that he is a person of goodmoral character, fit and proper to practice law. Sabandal
hereby allowedto take the lawyers oathTan vs. Sabandal, 206 SCRA
473 (1992)DOCTRINES:The practice of law is not a matter of right.No moral qualification for
bar membership is more important thantruthfulness or candor.FACTS:Respondent Sabandal
passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was denied to takehis oath in view of the finding of the
Court that he was guilty ofunauthorized practice of law. Since then, he had filed numerous
petitionsfor him to be allowed to take his lawyer's oath.Acting to his 1989 petition, the Court
directed the executive judge of theprovince where Sabandal is domiciled to submit a comment on
respondent'smoral fitness to be a member of the Bar. In compliance therewith, theexecutive judge

stated in his comment that he is not aware of any actscommitted by the respondent as would
disqualify him to from admission tothe Bar. However, he added that respondent has a pending
civil case beforehis court for cancellation/reversion proceedings, in which respondent,
thenworking as Land Investigator of the Bureau of Lands, is alleged to havesecured a free patent
and later a certificate of title to a parcel of landwhich, upon investigation, turned out to be
a swampland and not susceptibleof acquisition under a free patent, and which he later
mortgaged to thebank. The mortgage was later foreclosed and the land subsequently sold
atpublic auction and respondent has not redeemed the land since then.The case was however
been settled through amicable settlement. The saidamicable settlement canceled the OCT under
Free Patent in the name of
Sabandal and his mortgage in the bank; provided for the surrender of thecertificate of title to the
RD for proper annotation; reverted to the massof public domain the land covered by the
aforesaid certificate of titlewith respondent refraining from exercising acts of possession or
ownershipover the said land. Respondent also paid the bank a certain sum for theloan and
interest.ISSUE: Whether the respondent may be admitted to the practice of lawconsidering that
he already submitted three (3) testimonials regarding hisgood moral character, and his pending
civil case has been terminated.HELD:His petition must be denied.Time and again, it has been
held that practice of law is not a matter ofright. It is a privilege bestowed upon individuals who
are not only learnedin the law but who are also known to possess good moral character.It should
be recalled that respondent worked as Land Investigator at theBureau of Lands. Said
employment facilitated his procurement of the freepatent title over the property which he could
not but have known was apublic land. This was manipulative on his part and does not speak well
ofhis moral character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in thepublic service, which
cannot be erased by the termination of the case andwhere no determination of guilt or innocence
was made because the suit hasbeen compromised. This is a sad reflection of his sense of honor
and fairdealings.Moreover, his failure to reveal to the Court the pendency of the civil casefor
Reversion filed against him during the period that he was submittingseveral petitions and
motions for reconsiderations reveal his lack ofcandor and truthfulness.Although, the term "good
moral character" admits of broad dimensions, ithas been defined as "including at least common
dishonesty." It has alsobeen held that no moral qualification for membership is more important
thantruthfulness or candor.
The term pro bono is short for the Latin "pro bono publico," which means "for the public
good." The term generally refers to free services that a professional provides to povertystricken clients, non-profit groups or charitable organizations. In the financial world, the term
applies to free services or advice provided by a financial professional.
"Pro bono" gained popularity in the legal profession, as lawyers are bound by ethical rules to
charge reasonable rates for their services and to serve public interest by providing free legal
services to those in need. Financial planners also dedicate pro bono services by reducing or
eliminating service fees for charities, religious organizations, non-profit groups and
disadvantaged individuals.

OUNSEL DE OFICIO a counsel, appointed by the court from among such members of the bar in good
standing who, by reason of their experience and ability, may adequately defend the accused.