SUMMARY: A lawyer approached another lawyer’s client just outside the labor arbiter’s office, offered her a better service, promised good results, and implied that her lawyer was conniving with the labor arbiter against her.
FACTS: Marcelina Zamora alleged that Atty. Gallanosa approached her outside the labor arbiter’s office and inquired about the position paper prepared for her husband’s illegal dismissal case by the PAO. Atty. Gallanosa allegedly said the PAO lawyer did not attach the necessary evidence to the paper because of collusion with the labor arbiter.
This led Zamora to come to Atty. Gallanosa’s office to replace her position paper. Atty. Gallanosa supposedly told her that her professional fee would be equivalent to 20% of the judgment award and payable only if the case were won. However, Gallanosa never appeared in the hearing. When the decision was handed down, Gallanosa allegedly assured Zamora that the necessary appeal would be filed, but the reglementary period lapsed without any being filed.
When Zamora confronted Atty. Gallanosa, she denied being Zamora’s lawyer and offered her professional services. She admitted that she prepared the position paper free of charge but argued that she never signed the pleading or entered her appearance in the labor case.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Gallanosa should be administratively sanctioned for the acts complained of.
DECISION: Yes. SUSPENDED FOR 6 MONTHS. Guilty of violating Rules 2.03, 8.02, and 18.03 and Canon 17.
Ambulance chasing
Rule 2.03 of the CPR explicitly states that ” [a] lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.” Thus, “ambulance chasing,” or the solicitation of almost any kind of business by an attorney, personally or through an agent, in order to gain employment, is proscribed.
Lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and not a business; lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. To allow lawyers to advertise their talents or skills is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the public’s estimation, and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character of service to which every member of the bar is called. Thus, lawyers in making known their legal services must do so in a dignified manner. They are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers.
Lawyer-client relationship
Additionally, a lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment Atty. Gallanosa discussed with Zamora the labor case of her husband and advised her as to what legal course of action should be pursued therein. By Atty. Gallanosa’s acquiescence with the consultation and her drafting of the position paper which was thereafter submitted in the case, a professional employment was established between her and Zamora.
There being a lawyer-client relationship existing between the parties, Atty. Gallanosa was duty-bound to file the appeal she had agreed to prepare in the case at the soonest possible time, in order to protect the client’s interest. Her failure to do so made her liable for transgressing Canon 17 which enjoins lawyers to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on them, as well as Rule 18.03 of the CPR which prohibits lawyers from neglecting legal matters entrusted to them.
The Court likewise reiterated the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good results, or reduced fees for his services.
Read the full case here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.