In the USA, it is common for some specialized financing companies to issue clean loans to prospective plaintiffs to fund their potential suits, the same to payable from damages to be recovered from the defendants.
There is no such funding system in the Philippines. Not even a pre-need legal insurance system. (I wonder why Philippine insurance companies have not thought of exploring this line of business since the birth of the insurance industry in the early 1900s).
In a recent decision, the Philippine Supreme Court suspended an enterprising lawyer for pirating/stealing clients of another lawyer, with the enticement from the guilty lawyer that he would lend money to the clients to fund their suits, in the process earning twice from the deal: unethical contingent attorneys’ fees and interest income from the loan.
Illegal and unethical solicitation of clients and cases is punished under Rule 138 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines and the Code of Professional Responsibility. It debases the legal profession and degenerates lawyers into hungry and greedy market-type vendors of litigation skills.
Read the article below.
SC Suspends Money-Lending Lawyer for ‘Stealing’ Clients
Posted: September 10, 2009
by Annie Rose A. Laborte
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph
Thou shall not ‘steal’ another lawyer’s clients.
The Supreme Court has cracked the whip on a lawyer who had encroached on the professional practice of another lawyer and in doing so, contravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain.
In a the 12-page resolution penned by Justice Renato B. Corona, the Court suspended from the practice of law for one year Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Rules of Court.
The Court found that Tolentino committed an “unethical, predatory overstep into another’s legal practice.” Specifically, Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02, and 16.01, and Canon 3 of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Atty. Pedro L. Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services.
In his complaint, Linsangan alleged that Tolentino, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced three of Linsangan’s clients, who are all overseas seafarers, to transfer legal representation.
One of the said seafarers attested that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to switch to Tolentino’s services in exchange for a loan of PhP50,000. Labiano’s calling card had the words “with financial assistance” on the front, and “services offered: consultation and assistance to overseas seamen repatriated due to accident, injury, sickness, death and insurance benefit claims abroad” on the back.
In his defense, Tolentino initially denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation of the said calling card, but later on admitted it during the mandatory hearing held by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. It found that respondent encroached on the professional service of Linsangan, violating Rule 8.02 and other Canons of the CPR. Tolentino also contravened Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which prohibits solicitation of cases for gain, personally or through paid agents or brokers, it added. Rule 8.02, on the other hand, provides that a lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his services.
While the Court adopted the findings of the IBP, it raised the recommended penalty from reprimand to suspension.
The Court said Linsangan presented substantial evidence to prove that Tolentino benefited through Labiano’s actions, enticing hapless seamen to transfer representation due to Labiano’s promise that Tolentino could produce a more favorable result.
The Court pointed out that the phrase “with financial assistance” contained in Labiano’s calling card was clearly to lure clients who already had the services of another lawyer to change counsels with a promise of loan to finance their legal actions. Money was dangled the clients, taking advantage of their financial distress and emotional vulnerability, it said. The Court cited Rule 2.03 of the CPR, which provides that “(A) lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.” Thus, lawyers are not allowed to solicit cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers as such constitutes malpractice, which is a ground for disbarment.
The suspension takes effect immediately from Tolentino’s receipt of the Court’s resolution. The Court also sternly warned Tolentino that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. (AC No. 6672, Linsangan v. Tolentino, September 4, 2009)
See:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2009/09/09100901.php
