PALE Position Paper 4th

Karen Mae R.
Servan
NC Juris Doctor 3
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics
Atty. Virgo M. Gulan
POSITION PAPER
Issue: Is it ethical for Lawyers to withdraw because the client is no

longer paying? What is the impact of withdrawal to the dignity
of the legal profession?
One fundamental rule in legal ethics is that the practice of law is not a
business or a money-making venture. This is one of the characteristics
which distinguish practice of law from others and it makes the
profession a noble one.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court, in a long line of cases had

consistently held that lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in
which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration.
In Dominador P. Burbe vs. Atty. Alberto C. Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June
10, 2002, the High Court explained, to wit:
xxx
In this day and age, members of the bar often forget that the
practice of law is a profession and not a business. Lawyering is
not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law
advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The
gaining of a livelihood is not a professional but a secondary
consideration. Duty to public service and to the administration
of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who
must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to
themselves. The practice of law is a noble calling in which
emolument is a byproduct, and the highest eminence may be
attained without making much money.
xxx
1
It is wrong to say, however, that lawyers should not consider the
financial aspect of their profession because practically, every person
has ends to meet and need to put food on the table for themselves
and/or for their families. Lawyers are not spared from the economic
necessities in life. While it is not a business venture, it is neither a
purely charity work. Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) accordingly provides that a lawyer shall charge
only fair and reasonable fee and further laid down the factors in
determining his fees.
Probably one of the ethical issues that most lawyers face in their
practice concerns lawyer’s compensation. The cost of litigation in the
country may be burdensome for most people nowadays and to
deprive them of justice because of this will be an utter violation of the
constitutional provision on speedy and inexpensive disposition of
cases.
In reality, there are many instances where at the middle of the

litigation process, the client may fail to pay lawyer’s fee. This is where
the lawyer’s dilemma comes into play. Can he withdraw as counsel
on that ground?
On this matter the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly

provides the rule, viz:
CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO

THE NEEDY.
xxx
Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his
professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his
relations with paying clients.
While the Court recognizes the need for lawyers to be compensated

for their work, the lawyer should not withdraw whimsically. Even if
he felt inadequately compensated in the case he undertook to defend,
his obligations towards his clients embodied in the Lawyer’s Oath and
Code of Professional Responsibility remain. His zeal in handling the
case should neither diminish nor cease for this reason alone.
2
It is worthy to note the reality that a human nature, a lawyer may tend
to lose interest on the cause of his client. Nevertheless, the lawyer other
than the duty he has for his clients has the duty to the court for the
proper administration of justice whatever the circumstances will be.
The lawyer owes "entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm
zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of
his utmost learning and ability," to the end that nothing be taken or be
withheld from him, save by the rules of law, legally applied. Whatever
may be the ill-feeling existing between clients, should not be allowed
to influence counsel in their conduct and demeanor toward each other.
If this could not be really avoided and the continuance of lawyer-client

relationship would result to the deprivation of the client of his rights,
the lawyer should take necessary actions in court by filing a formal
withdrawal as counsel on the permissible grounds provided by law
(i.e., conflict of interest). Also, the lawyer is afforded with other
remedies to enforce payment from his client, one of which is the
Attorney’s lien, wherein the lawyer has a right to hold a client's
property or money until payment has been made for legal aid and
advice given. The property may include business files, official
documents, and money awarded by a court.
Without resorting to these formal remedies, the lawyer will be

considered as negligent in handling his clients’ case and will put the
legal profession in a bad light.

PALE Position Paper 4th

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PALE Position Paper 4th

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PALE Position Paper 4th

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Karen Mae R.

Issue: Is it ethical for Lawyers to withdraw because the client is no

Accordingly, the Supreme Court, in a long line of cases had

In reality, there are many instances where at the middle of the

On this matter the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly

CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO

While the Court recognizes the need for lawyers to be compensated

If this could not be really avoided and the continuance of lawyer-client

Without resorting to these formal remedies, the lawyer will be

You might also like