Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.

Rule 2.03 | June 17, 1993 | Regalado, JNature of Case: Original Petition in the SCPetitioner: Mauricio UlepRespondent: The Legal
Clinic, Inc.

SUMMARY:
Petitioner avers that the advertisements reproduced arechampertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive ofthe
confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the barand that, as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed
and offended bythe said advertisements. Respondent admits the fact of publication of saidadvertisements at its instance, but claims
that it is not engaged in the practiceof law but in the rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals withthe use of modern
computers and electronic machines.
DOCTRINE:
The services offered by respondent include various legalproblems wherein a client may avail of legal services from
simpledocumentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most ofthese services are exclusive functions of lawyers
engaged in the practice oflaw. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in goodand regular standing is entitled
to practice law.
FACTS:
•Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays for the Court "to order therespondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., to cease and desist
from issuingadvertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of Annexes `A' and`B' (of said petition) and to perpetually prohibit
persons or entities frommaking advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law professionother than those allowed by law.”
•Petitioner avers that the advertisements reproduced are champertous,unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of
theconfidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the barand that, as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed
andoffended by the said advertisements.
•Respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements at itsinstance, but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law
but in therendering of "legal support services" through paralegals with the use ofmodern computers and electronic machines.
•Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised arelegal services, the act of advertising these services should be
allowedsupposedly 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 SupremeCourt on June 7, 1977.
•The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support servicescan neither be seriously considered nor sustained. Said
proposition isbelied by respondent's own description of the services it has beenoffering.
•While some of the services being offered by respondent corporationmerely involve mechanical and technical know-how, such as
theinstallation of computer systems and programs for the efficientmanagement of law offices, or the computerization of research aids
andmaterials, these will not suffice to justify an exception to the general rule.
•It is palpably clear that respondent corporation gives out legalinformation to laymen and lawyers. Its contention that such function
isnon-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real.
•In providing information, for example, about foreign laws on marriage,divorce and adoption, it strains the credulity of this Court that
all thatrespondent corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a copythereof to the client, and stop there as if it were merely
a bookstore
•It is clear that services offered by respondent fall within the ambit of thepractice of law. And only a person duly admitted as a
member of the barand who is in good and regular stading is entitled to practice law.

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

1.WON the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., asadvertised by it constitutes practice of law and, in either case,
whetherthe same can properly be the subject of the advertisements hereincomplained of – YESThe Legal Clinic is engaged in the
practice of law and such practice is notallowed. Respondent is composed mainly of paralegals; the services it offersinclude various
legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal servicesfrom simple documentation to complex litigation and
corporateundertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain ofparalegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of
lawyers engaged in thepractice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services beingoffered by Legal Clinic which
constitute practice of law cannot be performedby paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and whois in good
and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.

RULING:

The Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN The Legal Clinic, Inc., fromissuing or causing the publication or dissemination of
any advertisement in any formwhich is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of
this petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, operation ortransaction proscribed by law or the Code of
Professional Ethics as indicated herein.

NOTE:Rule 2.03
- A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarilyto solicit legal business