Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. MARICEL PASCUAL-LOPEZ, Respondent.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents contention that she did not violate any
ethical standard and that her act was in accord with Rule 2,02 of the
Code of Professional Conduct is tenable.
RULING:
No. Respondent must have known that her act of constantly and
actively communicating with complainant, who, at that time, was
beleaguered with demands from investors of Multitel, eventually led to
the establishment of a lawyer-client relationship which is contrary to
Rule 2.02 of the Code of Professional Conduct.
Given the situation, the most decent and ethical thing which
respondent should have done was either to advise complainant to
engage the services of another lawyer since she was already
representing the opposing parties, or to desist from acting as
representative of Multitel investors and stand as counsel for
complainant. She cannot be permitted to do both because that would
amount to double-dealing and violate our ethical rules on conflict of
interest.
FACTS:
Front
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFFICE
Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal
Back
SERVICES OFFERED:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes.
RULE 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business.
Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers.15 Such
actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.16
Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which
provides:
RULE 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.