NATURE OF LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

Roman Law concepts

Location conductio operanum (contract of lease of services)
Mandato (contract of agency)
The relation of lawyer and client is strictly personal.
The relationship is of such delicate, exacting, and confidential in nature that is required by necessity and
public interest. (Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938, September 20, 1996, citing Agpalo, Ruben, Legal
Ethics, 1992 ed., p. 136).
They owe entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and the defense of the
clients rights, and the exertion of their utmost learning and abilities to the end that nothing be taken or
withheld from the client, save by the rules of law legally applied. (Tan v. Lapak, 350 SCRA 74, January 23,
2001).
The duty of a lawyer to preserve his clients secrets and confidence outlasts the termination of the lawyerclient relationship, and continues even after the clients death. (In re Miller, 357 N.C. 316 [2003], citing
Glover v. Patten, 165 U.S. 394, 407-408 [1897]).

NATURE OF LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

It is not essential that the client employed the attorney professionally on any previous
occasion. It is not necessary that any retainer be paid, promised, or charged; neither is it
material that the attorney consulted did not afterward handle the case for which his service
had been sought. (Burbe v. Magulta, A.C. No. 99-634, June 10, 2002).
A lawyer-client relationship exists notwithstanding the close personal relationship between
the lawyer and the complainant or the nonpayment of the formers fees. (Junio v. Grupo, A.C.
NO. 5020, December 18, 2001).
An effective lawyer-client relationship is largely between lawyer and client which in turn requires a
situation which encourages a dynamic and fruitful exchange and flow of information.

ESTABLISHMENT OF
LAWYER-CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP

CREATION OF LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

ORAL
Counsel is employed without written agreement.
Conditions and amount of attorneys fees are agreed upon.
EXPRESS
Terms and conditions are explicitly stipulated in a written document.
IMPLIED
No agreement whether oral or written but client allowed the lawyer to render legal services.

INSTANCES WHEN LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS ESTABLISHED

Voluntary agreement by the client and lawyer

Employment of law firm (Hilado v. David, 84 Phil. 569 [1949])

Retainer (Pickens Co. v. Thomas, 111 SE 27, 21 ALR 1438 [1922]; Agnew v. Halden, 4 So 627 Ala [1887])

Appointment of a lawyer as counsel de oficio for a poor or indigent litigant (Sec. 31, Rule 138, Rules of Court)

Request of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to render free legal aid to poor deserving litigants (Rule
14.02, Code of Professional Responsibility)

Lawyer acting as mediator, conciliator, or arbitrator in settling disputes (Rule 15.04, Code of Professional
Responsibility)

When the client made a confidential communication with a lawyer in the latters professional capacity
(Olender v. U.S., 210 F2d 795, 42 ALR2d 736 [1954])

SELECTED JURISPRUDENCE
Hadjula v. Madianda, A.C. No. 6711, July 3, 2007
ISSUE:
Whether or not there exists a lawyer-client relationship between Hadjula and Madianda on account of the
formers disclosure during a consultation.
HELD:
The moment Hadjula approached Madianda to seek legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved
between the two.
The fact that one is, at the end of the day, not inclined to handle the clients case is hardly of consequence. Of
little moment, too, is the fact that no formal professional engagement follows the consultation. Nor will it make
any difference that no contract whatsoever was executed by the parties to memorialize their relationship.
Atty. Madianda is reprimanded and admonished to the circumspect in her handling of information acquired as
a result of lawyer-client relationship. She is also sternly warned against a repetition of the same or similar act
complained of.

SELECTED JURISPRUDENCE
Hilado v. David, 84 Phil. 569, September 21, 1949
ISSUE:
Whether or not there exists a lawyer-client relationship between Hilado and Atty. David when the
former gave the papers of the case to the latter although she was not able to pay him legal fees.
HELD:
To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should have employed the
attorney professionally on any previous occasion * * *. It is not necessary that any retainer should
have been paid, promised, or charged for; neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not
afterward undertake the case about which the consultation was had. If a person, in respect to his
business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with
the view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or
acquiesces in such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as
established * * *.

SELECTED JURISPRUDENCE
Hilado v. David, 84 Phil. 569, September 21, 1949
HELD:
A retaining fee is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or counsel to insure and secure his future services,
and induce him to act for the client. It is intended to remunerate counsel for being deprived - by being retained
by one party - of the opportunity of rendering services to the other and of receiving pay from him. And the
payment of such fee, in the absence of an express understanding to the contrary, is neither made nor
received in payment of the services contemplated; its payment has no relation to the obligation of the client to
pay his attorney for the services which he has retained him to perform.
Kinds of Retainer Agreements on Attorneys fees:
1. General Retainer or Retaining Fee it is the fee paid to a lawyer to secure his future services as general
counsel for any ordinary legal problem that may arise in the ordinary business of the client and referred to him
for legal action;
2. Special Retainer that is a fee for a specific case or service rendered by the lawyer for a client
3. Quantum Meruit it means as much as he deserves, and is used as the basis for determining the lawyers
professional fees in the absence of a contract, but recoverable by him from his client.

TERMINATION OF
LAWYER-CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP

INSTANCES WHEN LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS TERMINATED

When the lawyer withdraws his services
When the client discharges the lawyer
Other causes

WHEN THE LAWYER WITHDRAWS HIS SERVICES

CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON
NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Rule 22.01 - A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following case:
a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter he is
handling;
b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules;
c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the client;
d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the
employment effectively;
e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer
agreement;
f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and
g) Other similar cases.

WHEN THE CLIENT DISCHARGES THE LAWYER

The client has the right to terminate at any time with or without just cause.
Just cause is material only in determining compensation.
Limitations of clients right to discharge his counsel:
Client cannot deprive his counsel of his right to be paid for services rendered if
dismissal is without cause.
Client cannot discharge counsel as an excuse to secure repeated extensions of time.
Notice of discharge required in so far as court and adverse party are concerned.

OTHER CAUSES

Death of the lawyer

Death of the client

Appointment or election of the lawyer to a government position which prohibits private practice of law

Full termination of a case

Disbarment or suspension of the lawyer from the practice of law

Intervening incapacity or incompetence of the client during the pendency of the case

Declaration of presumptive death of lawyer

Conviction of a crime and imprisonment of a lawyer

SELECTED JURISPRUDENCE
Montano v. IBP, A.C. NO. 4215, May 21, 2001
ISSUE:
Whether or not the lawyer-respondent committed misconduct and violated the provisions of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which is a ground for his withdrawal from the case.
HELD:
The Court finds respondents conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. Under
Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall withdraw his services only for
good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. Although he may withdraw his
services when the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services, under the circumstances
of the present case, Atty. Dealcas withdrawal was unjustified as complainant did not deliberately
fail to pay him the attorneys fees. In fact, complainant exerted honest efforts to fulfil his obligation.

SELECTED JURISPRUDENCE
Orcino v. Gaspar, 279 SCRA 379, September 24, 1997
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Gaspar had the right to terminate lawyer-client relationship.
HELD:
The rule on this jurisdiction is that a client has an absolute right to terminate the attorney-client
relationship at any time with or without cause. The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the
relation other than for sufficient cause is, however, considerably restricted. He is not at a liberty to
abandon it without reasonable cause. A lawyers right to withdraw from a case before its final
adjudication arises only from the clients written consent or from good cause.

SELECTED JURISPRUDENCE
Orcino v. Gaspar, 279 SCRA 379, September 24, 1997
HELD:
A lawyer may withdraw his services from the client only in the following instances: (a) when a
client insists upon an unjust or immoral conduct of his case; (b) when the client insists that the
lawyer pursue conduct violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility; (c) when the client has
two or more retained lawyers and the lawyers could not get along to the detriment of the case; (d)
when the mental or physical condition of the lawyer makes him incapable of handling the case
effectively; (e) when the client deliberately fails to pay the attorneys fees agreed upon; (f) when
the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; (g) other similar cases.