Legal & Judicial Ethics, M.P.Lacsie, 2015 pg.

Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law, except:
(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latter's death,
money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to persons specified in the
agreement; or
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan even if the plan is
based in whole or in part, on a profit sharing agreement.
The reason of prohibition, as stated in PAFLU Vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Company, G.R. No. L-23959, November 29,
1971, No one is entitled to recover compensation for services as an attorney at law unless he has been duly admitted to
practice ... and is an attorney in good standing at the time. xxx The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession
should not be violated; that acting as an attorney with authority constitutes contempt of court, which is punishable by
fine or imprisonment or both, and the law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit of an act or an act done
in violation of law; and that if were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the public in hopeless confusion as to
whom to consult in case of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic condition, aside from the fact that non -lawyers
are not amenable to disciplinary measures (citing Harriman vs. Straham).
In Tumbokon Vs. Pefianco, A.C. No. 6116, August 1, 2012, An agreement to share in attorneys fees is condemned.
Complainant narrated that respondent undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to 10%, of the attorney's
fees the latter would receive in representing Spouses Amable and Rosalinda Yap (Sps. Yap), whom he referred, in an
action for partition of the estate of the late Benjamin Yap (Civil Case No. 4986 before the Regional Trial Court of Aklan).
Their agreement was reflected in a letter dated August 11, 1995. However, respondent failed to pay him the agreed
commission notwithstanding receipt of attorney's fees amounting to 17% of the total estate or about P 40 million.
Instead, he was informed through a letter dated July 16, 1997 that Sps. Yap assumed to pay the same after
respondent had agreed to reduce his attorney's fees from 25% to 17%. He then demanded the payment of his
commission which respondent ignored. Respondent's defense that forgery had attended the execution of the August 11,
1995 letter was belied by his July 16, 1997 letter admitting to have undertaken the payment of complainant's
commission but passing on the responsibility to Sps. Yap. Clearly, respondent has violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the
Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to
practice law, except in certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar
In Lijauco Vs. Terrado, A.C. No. 6317, August 31, 2006, By openly admitting he divided the Php 70,000.00 to other
individuals as commission/referral fees respondent violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons
not licensed to practice law.