LEGAL ETHICSTarsh27Director of Religious Affairs vs Estanislao Bayot4 Phil 579 Legal Ethics MalpracticeIn June 1943, Bayot advertised in a newspaper that he helps people in securing marriage licenses; that he does so avoiding delays and publicity; that he also makes marriage arrangements; that legal consultations are free for the poor; and that everything is confidential. The Director of Religious Affairs took notice of the ad and so he sued Bayot for Malpractice.Bayot initially denied having published the advertisement. But later, he admitted the same and asked for the courts mercy as he promised to never repeat the act again.ISSUE:Whether or not Bayot is guilty of Malpractice.HELD:Yes. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. The advertisement he caused to be published is a brazen solicitation of business from the public. . It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. The Supreme Court again emphasized that best advertisement for a lawyer is the establishment of a well-merited reputation forprofessionalcapacity and fidelity to trust. But because of Bayots plea for leniency and his promise and the fact that he did not earn any case by reason of the ad, the Supreme Court merely reprimanded him.In Re: Luis Tagorda53 Phil 37 Legal Ethics Malpractice Solicitation of Legal Business Advertisement in the Legal Profession Stirring Up of LitigationIn 1928, Luis Tagorda was a provincial board member of Isabela. Before his election, he campaigned that he is a lawyer and a notary public; that as a notary public he can do notarial acts such as execution of deeds of sale, etc.; that as a lawyer, he can help clients collect debts; that he offers free consultation; that he is willing to serve the poor.When he won, he wrote a letter to the barrio lieutenant of Echague, Isable advising the latter that even though he was elected as a provincial board member, he can still practice law; that he wants the lieutenant to tell the same to his people; that he is willing to receive works regarding preparations of sales contracts and affidavits etc.; that he is willing to receive land registration cases for a charge of three pesos.ISSUE:Whether or not Tagorda is guilty of malpractice.HELD:Yes. Tagorda admitted doing the foregoing acts. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for ayoung lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well- merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must be the outcome of character and conduct. Solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters of any kind, whether allied real estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills or offering retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer. Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interests involved, the importance of the lawyers position, and all other like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are intolerable.It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do so.Tagordas liability is however mitigated by the fact that he is a young inexperienced lawyer and that he was unaware of the impropriety of his acts. So instead of being disbarred, he was suspended from the practice of law for a month.People vs Mc Cable[No. AO17033. Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division Four. June 6, 1983.]THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CATHERINE ANN McCABE, Defendant and Appellant.(Opinion by The Court.)COUNSELCarmen J. Newby for Defendant and Appellant.George Deukmejian, Attorney General, Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Assistant Attorney General, William D. Stein, Assistant Attorney General, Eugene Kaster and Laurence K. Sullivan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.OPINIONTHE COURT.Catherine McCabe was charged with possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351) based on cocaine the police found in her purse. Appellant pleaded not guilty. After her motion to suppress evidence was denied, she pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of possession of cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11350.) The court placed her on probation on the condition that she serve 12 days in the county jail and that she pay a $1,000 fine. On appeal, the issue is whether the police lawfully seized the cocaine from appellant's purse where they searched the purse under the authority of a search warrant providing for the search of a residence where appellant was visiting at the time of the search.Frank Luis, Brennan Pang, and Sarah Bush shared a house at 838 Rorke Way in Palo Alto. Luis and Pang sold small amounts of cocaine to an undercover police officer at the residence. The police obtained a search warrant providing for the seizure of cocaine, marijuana, and narcotics paraphernalia on the premises of 838 Rorke Way.When the police arrived at the house to execute the search warrant, the officer in charge demanded entry, waited 20 to 25 seconds and entered.[144 Cal.App.3d 830]Appellant, who was not a resident at 838 Rorke Way, was on the kitchen floor when the police entered. Bush was found hiding in the shower. Pang was found in the living room. The police found appellant's purse on a table in the living room.One of the police officers opened appellant's purse and found her driver's license and bindles of cocaine. The police also found quantities of cocaine, marijuana, and drug-related paraphernalia in the bedrooms of the residents.[1a] Appellant contends that the search of her purse was unlawful because the police may not rely on a search warrant to search the personal effects of a visitor who happens to be present on the premises at the time of the execution of the search warrant. Respondent contends that the search warrant authorized the search of the purse because the police may rely on a search warrant to search anywhere that the contraband which is the object of the search warrant might be concealed.[2] During the execution of a search warrant for fixed premises, the police may lawfully search the personal effects of a resident of the premises subject to search where the personal effects are plausible repositories of contraband. (People v. Saam (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 789, 794 [165 Cal.Rptr. 265]). [3] Today we hold that, during the execution of a search warrant, the police may, under specified conditions, lawfully search the personal effects of nonresidents found on the premises subject to search.[4] The police may ordinarily assume that all personal property which they find while executing a search warrant is the property of a resident of the premises subject to search. (State v. Nabarro (1974) 55 Haw. 583 [525 P.2d 573, 577]). [5] Thus, the police may search any personal property of a visitor which might serve as a plausible repository of the contraband which is the object of the search where they have no knowledge of the fact that the item searched is the personal property of a visitor. (Id) If the police have actual knowledge that the property which is searched belongs to a nonresident, however, they may not, as a general rule, rely on the authority conferred by a search warrant to conduct a warrantless search of the nonresident's property, even though it is a plausible repository of contraband. (Id; 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure (1978) Search Warrants, 4.10(b), p. 154.). [6] When the police know that the personal effects found on the property belong to a nonresident, the police may rely on the authority of the search warrant to conduct a search of the personal effects of the nonresident only if someone within the premises has had an opportunity to conceal contraband within the personal effects of the nonresident immediately prior to the execution of the search warrant. (United States v. Johnson[144 Cal.App.3d 831](D.C. Cir. 1973) 475 F.2d 977, 979; 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure, supra, at p. 157.)[1b] In the present case, the police officers referred to no facts which would have led them to believe that the occupants had concealed contraband in the purse immediately prior to entry. Thus, the search of the purse was lawful only if the police had no knowledge that the purse was the property of a nonresident.Given the circumstances leading up to the search of the purse, the police knew of no facts which would have put them on notice that the purse belonged to a nonresident. The police officers were not told by appellant that the purse belonged to her. Appellant did not have possession of the purse at the time the police entered the house, nor did she subsequently take possession of the purse. (Cf. State v. Nabarro, supra, 525 P.2d at p. 577.) Moreover, the police were not compelled to infer from the fact that Luis and Pang, two males, were the suspects in the case that a purse, typically a woman's accessory, was beyond the permissible scope of the search warrant. The police knew that three people shared the premises subject to search: two men and a woman, Sarah Bush. The police could have reasonably assumed that the purse belonged to Bush, thereby bringing it within the scope of the search warrant. (Cf. State v. Nabarro, supra, 525 P.2d at p. 577). In the absence of any facts to suggest that the police knew that appellant owned the purse, the search of the purse did not exceed the permissible scope of the search warrant.The judgment is affirmed.

ULEP VS LEHGAL CLINIC INC223 SCRA 378 42 SCAD 287 Legal Ethics Advertisement in the Legal Profession Practice of LawIn 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latters advertisements which contain the following:SECRET MARRIAGE?P560.00 for a valid marriage.Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-20418:30am 6:00pm7thFlr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., ManilaGUAM DIVORCEDON PARKINSONAn attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retirees Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.Call Marivic.THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.7thFlr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US EmbassyTel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can take care of a clients problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are specialists in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys.As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the US which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.ISSUE:Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.HELD:Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code ofProfessionalResponsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation forprofessionalcapacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the following as allowed forms of advertisement:1. Advertisement in a reputable law list2. Use of ordinary simpleprofessionalcard3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization

2