Legal and Judicial Ethics
Ritchelyn Smile Paderna
JDL-13
I. Concept
Practice of Law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience.
In the case of Cayetano v. Monsod, practice of law defined:
"To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the
profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device
or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill."
Preamble of Ethics
Ethics is the experiential manifestation of moral standards. The observance of these standards
of conduct is both a function of personal choice and formal compulsion. A lawyer is ideally ethical
by personal choice. A code of ethics expressly adopted represents society’s consensus and dictate
to conform to a chosen norm of behavior that sustains the community’s survival and growth.
The Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, as an institutional imperative, is
meant to foster an environment where ethical conduct performs a dedicated role in the
administration of justice. In particular, the standards embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Accountability uniquely address the characteristics of the Filipino lawyer as an
amalgamation of influences and moorings, i.e., familial, cultural, religious, academic, political,
and philosophical. Inherently a social being, the Filipino lawyer inevitably develops and cultivates
relations, preferences and biases. The conscious adoption of ethical standards that accounts for
such relationships and personal choices balanced against the demands of right and justice is
envisioned to govern and regulate these personal choices and make them consistent with the
institutional objectives.
The existence of a free and an independent society depends upon the recognition of the concept
that justice is based on the rule of law.
As a guardian of the rule of law, every lawyer, as a citizen, owes allegiance to the Constitution and
the laws of the land; as a member of the legal profession, is bound by its ethical standards in both
private and professional matters; as an officer of the court, assists in the administration of justice;
and as a client’s representative, acts responsibly upon a fiduciary trust.
An ethical lawyer is a lawyer possessed of integrity. Integrity is the sum total of all the ethical
values that every lawyer must embody and exhibit. A lawyer with integrity, therefore, acts with
independence, propriety, fidelity, competence and diligence, equality and accountability.
Failure to abide by the Code results in sanctions
Legal and Judicial Ethics
Ritchelyn Smile Paderna
JDL-13
Lawyer’s Oath Old
I, _________________, do solemnly swear
That I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,
I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities therein;
I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;
I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid
nor consent to the same;
I will delay no man for money or malice,
And will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion,
With all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients;
And I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion.
So help me God.
Lawyer’s Oath New
“I (name) do solemnly swear that I accept the honor, privilege, duty, and responsibility of
practicing law in the Philippines as an officer of the court, in the interest of our people.
I declare fealty to the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.
In so doing, I shall work towards promoting the rule of law in a regime of truth, justice, freedom,
love, equality, and peace.
I shall conscientiously and courageously work for justice as well as safeguard the rights and
meaningful freedoms of all persons, identities, and communities. I shall ensure greater and
equitable access to justice.s
I shall do no falsehood nor shall I pervert the law to unjustly favor or prejudice anyone.
I shall faithfully discharge these duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability, with
integrity and utmost civility.
I impose upon myself without mental reservation nor purpose of evasion so help me God.”
➢ The lawyer’s oath is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should
at all times weigh his actions according to the sworn promises he makes when taking the
Legal and Judicial Ethics
Ritchelyn Smile Paderna
JDL-13
lawyer’s oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves strictly according to the lawyer’s oath and
the Code of Professional responsibility, the administration of justice will undoubtedly fairer,
faster and easier for everyone concerned. (In Re: Argosino, 270 SCRA 26)
Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral
indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community.
Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled
as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the community's sense of decency.
➢ These distinctions are made as the supreme penalty of disbarment arising from conduct
requires grossly immoral, not simply immoral, conduct. Some crimes involving moral
turpitude:
1. Estafa;
2. Bribery;
3. Murder;
4. Bigamy;
5. Seduction;
6. Abduction;
7. Concubinage;
8. Smuggling;
9. Falsification of public documents;
10. Violation of BP 22, among others.
Barratry is the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and suits, either at law or
otherwise. It is the lawyer’s act of fomenting suits among individuals and offering his legal services
to one of them for monetary motives or purposes.
Ambulance chasing is the act of haunting hospitals and visiting homes of the afflicted, officiously
intruding their presence and persistently offering his service on the basis of a contingent fee. The
lawyer is guilty of ambulance chasing whether the act is done by him personally or by person
under his employer.
Retaining lien: upon the funds, documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into
his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid,
and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof.
➢ This rule only applies to Retaining lien. It is a passive lien and may not be actively enforced.
It amounts to a mere right to retain the papers as against the client until the lawyer is fully
paid. Requisites for its valid exercise are:
Legal and Judicial Ethics
Ritchelyn Smile Paderna
JDL-13
a. Client-lawyer relationship;
b. Claims for attorney’s fees are not satisfied;
c. Counsel is in possession of the subject papers, documents and funds; and
d. That the possession is lawful.
Charging lien: to the same extent upon all judgments for the payment of money, and executions
issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in a litigation of his client, from and
after the time when he shall have the caused a statement of his claim of such lien to be entered
upon the records of the court rendering such judgment, or issuing such execution, and shall have
the caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his client and to the adverse party; and he shall
have the same right and power over such judgments and executions as his client would have to
enforce his lien and secure the payment of his just fees and disbursements
➢ Requisites are:
a. Client-lawyer relationship;
b. Favorable judgment secured by the counsel for his client which judgment is a money judgment;
c. Noting into the records of the case through the filing of an appropriate motion of the statement
of the lawyer’s claim for attorney’s fees with copies furnished to the client and the adverse party.
Quantum Meruit means as much as he has deserved. Recovery of attorney’s fees on the basis of
quantum meruit is authorized when;
a. There is no express contract for payment of attorney’s fees;
b. Where the stipulated fees are unconscionable;
c. When the contract is void due to formal matters;
d. When the counsel was not able to finish the case to its conclusion, for justifiable reasons;
e. When the parties both disregard the contract.
➢ Thus, quantum meruit is a legal mechanism in legal ethics which prevents an unscrupulous
client from running away with the fruits of the legal services of a counsel without paying
therefor. It prevents unjust enrichment based on the equitable postulate that it is unjust for a
person to retain benefit without paying for it.
II. FOUR-FOLD DUTIES OF A LAWYER
1. Duties to SOCIETY – should not violate his responsibility to society, exemplar for
righteousness, ready to render legal aid, foster social reforms, guardian of due process, aware of
special role in the solution of special problems and be always ready to lend assistance in the study
and solution of social problems.
2. Duties to the LEGAL PROFESSION – candor, fairness, courtesy and truthfulness, avoid
encroachment in the business of other lawyers, uphold the honor of the profession.
3. Duties to the COURT – respect or defend against criticisms, uphold authority and dignity, obey
order and processes, assist in the administration of justice.
4. Duties to the CLIENT – entire devotion to client’s interest.
Legal and Judicial Ethics
Ritchelyn Smile Paderna
JDL-13
III. SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT, AND DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS
1. Suspension; is the temporary withholding of the lawyer’s privilege to practice his profession
for a certain period, or for an indefinite period of time.
2. Disbarment; is the act of the Philippine Supreme Court in withdrawing from an attorney the
privilege to practice law. Restorative justice, not retributive, is the goal in disciplinary
proceedings against lawyers.
3. Warning, Admonition and Reprimand — A warning, in ordinary parlance, has been defined
as "an act or fact of putting one on his guard against an impending danger, evil consequences
or penalties," while an admonition, "refers to a gentle or friendly reproof, a mild rebuke,
warning or reminder, counselling, on a fault, error or oversight, an expression of authoritative
advice or warning". They are not considered as penalties.
4. A reprimand, on the other hand, is of a more severe nature, and has been defined as a public
and formal censure or severe reproof, administered to a person in fault by his superior officer
or a body to which he belongs. It is more than just a warning or an admonition. A reprimand
is an administrative penalty although it may be a slight form of penalty.
5. Censure, an official reprimand.
➢ The main objects of disbarment and suspension proceedings are:
a. To compel the attorney to deal fairly and honestly with his clients; and
b. To remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney;
c. To punish the lawyer although not so much as to safeguard the administration of justice;
d. To set an example or a warning for the other members of the bar;
e. To safeguard the administration of justice from incompetence and dishonesty of lawyers;
f. To protect the public.
IV. Nature and characteristics of disciplinary actions against lawyers
a. Sui generis
A disbarment proceeding is a class by itself. It is sui generis. It has the following
characteristics:
1. It is neither a civil nor a criminal proceeding;
2. Double jeopardy cannot be availed of;
3. It can be initiated motu proprio by the SC or IBP;
4. It can proceed regardless of the interest, or lack thereof, of complainants;
5. It is imprescriptible;
6. Its conduct is confidential until its final determination; 7. It is itself due process of
law;
8. Whatever has been decided therein cannot be a source of right that may be enforced
in another action;
9. In pari delicto rule is inapplicable
Legal and Judicial Ethics
Ritchelyn Smile Paderna
JDL-13
V. Grounds
A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any;
1. deceit,
2. malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
3. grossly immoral conduct, or
4. by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or
5. for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or
6. for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or
7. for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do.
The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (27 Rule 138)
VI. Qualifications of Notary Public
A notarial commission may be issued by an Executive Judge to any qualified person who
submits a petition in accordance with these Rules.
To be eligible for commissioning as notary public, the petitioner:
1) must be a citizen of the Philippines;
2) must be over twenty-one (21) years of age;
3) must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and maintains a regular place of
work or business in the city or province where the commission is to be issued;
4) must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing with clearances from the Office of the
Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and
5) must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving moral turpitude.
VII. Powers and limitations
A notary public is empowered to perform the following notarial acts:
1) Acknowledgments;
2) oaths and affirmations;
3) Jurats;
4) signature witnessings;
5) copy certifications; and
6) any other act authorized by these Rules
VIII. Disqualifications
A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:
a) is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized;
b) will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest,
cash, property, or other consideration, except as provided by these Rules and by law; or
c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity
of the principal within the fourth civil degree.
Legal and Judicial Ethics
Ritchelyn Smile Paderna
JDL-13
CANON I SEC. II
Merit-based practice.
A lawyer shall rely solely on the merits of a cause and not
exert, or give the appearance of, any influence on, nor
undermine the authority of, the court, tribunal or other
government agency, or its proceedings.
CANON II SEC. II
Dignified conduct.
A lawyer shall respect the law, the courts, tribunals, and
other government agencies, their officials, employees, and
processes, and act with courtesy, civility, fairness, and
candor towards fellow members of the bar.
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on one’s fitness to practice law, nor behave in a
scandalous manner, whether in public or private life, to the
discredit of the legal profession.
CANON III SEC. II
The responsible and accountable lawyer.
A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote respect for laws and
legal processes, safeguard human rights, and at all times advance the honor and integrity of the
legal profession. As an officer of the court, a lawyer shall uphold the rule of law and
conscientiously assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. As an advocate, a
lawyer shall represent the client with fidelity and zeal within the bounds of the law and the CPRA.
CASES
Belo-Henares v. Guevarra 2016
WON respondent should be held administratively liable based on the allegations of the verified
complaint.
YES. Respondent never denied that he posted the purportedly vulgar and obscene remarks about
complainant and BMGI on his Facebook account.
The Court cannot accept the argument that the subject remarks were written in the exercise of his
freedom of speech and expression. The remarks complained of disclosed that they were ostensibly
made with malice tending to insult and tarnish the reputation of complainant and BMGI. Calling
complainant a "quack doctor," "Reyna ng Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng Payola," and "Reyna ng
Kapalpakan," and insinuating that she has been bribing people to destroy respondent smacks of
Legal and Judicial Ethics
Ritchelyn Smile Paderna
JDL-13
bad faith and reveals an intention to besmirch the name and reputation of complainant, as well as
BMGI. By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI,
respondent disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper decorum at all
times, be it in his public or private life. That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and
therefore, a public personage who is exposed to criticism does not justify respondent's disrespectful
language. It is the cardinal condition of all criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill
over the walls of decency and propriety.
Atty. Guevarra is found guilty of violation of Rules 7.03, 8.01, and 19.01 of the CPR and is thus
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
Palencia v. Linsangan
WON respondents violated the CPR.
YES. The Court adopts the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct of Attys. Pedro L.
Linsangan and Gerard M. Linsangan. Atty. Linsangan-Binoya is however absolved for lack of any
evidence as to her participation in the acts complained of.
The practice of law is a profession and not a business. A lawyer in making known his legal services
must do so in a dignified manner. They are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain,
either personally or through paid agents or brokers. Thus, "ambulance chasing," or the solicitation
of almost any kind of business by an attorney, personally or through an agent, in order to gain
employment, is proscribed.
Here, there is sufficient evidence to show that respondents violated these rules. No less than their
former paralegal Jesherel admitted that Atty. Pedro Linsangan came with her and another paralegal
named Moises, to Manila Doctors Hospital several times to convince complainant to hire their
services. This is a far cry from respondents' claim that they were merely providing free legal advice
to the public.
The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary. Thus, Canon 16 and its rules
remind a lawyer to:
1) hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession;
2) deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand subject to his retaining
lien; and
3) account for all money or property collected or received for or from his client.
Legal and Judicial Ethics
Ritchelyn Smile Paderna
JDL-13
Money collected by a lawyer on a judgment rendered in favor of his client constitutes trust funds
and must be immediately paid over to the client. It is the lawyer's duty to give a prompt and
accurate account to his client. We find that while respondents gave prompt notice to complainant
of their receipt of money collected in the latter's favor, they were amiss in their duties to give
accurate accounting of the amounts due to complainant, and to return the money due to client
upon demand.
Since a claim for attorney's fees may be asserted either in the very action in which the services of
a lawyer had been rendered, or in a separate action, respondents, instead of forcibly deducting
their share, should have moved for the judicial determination and collection of their
attorney's fees. The fact alone that a lawyer has a lien for his attorney's fees on money in his hands
collected for his client does not entitle him to unilaterally appropriate his client's money for
himself.
Next, it is improper for the lawyer to put his client's funds in his personal safe deposit vault. Funds
belonging to the client should be deposited in a separate trust account in a bank or trust company
of good repute for safekeeping. We find Attys. Pedro Linsangan and Gerard Linsangan to have
violated Rule 1.03, Rule 2.03, Canon 3, Canon 16, Rule 16.01, and Rule 16.03 of the CPR. The
penalty of two years of SUSPENSION corresponds to the compounded infractions of the
violations of the CPR:
1) the penalty of suspension of one year is imposed for the violation of the proscription on
ambulance chasing; and 2) the penalty of one year suspension for gross misconduct consisting in
the failure or refusal, despite demand, of a lawyer to account for and return money or property
belonging to a client.
Paras v. Paras
WON respondent should be administratively held liable for practicing law while he was
suspended.
YES. Generally, the IBP's formal investigation is a mandatory requirement which may not be
dispensed with, except for valid and compelling reasons, as it is essential to accord both parties an
opportunity to be heard on the issues raised. Absent a valid fact-finding investigation, the Court
usually remands the administrative case to the IBP for further proceedings. However, in light of
the foregoing circumstances, as well as respondent's own admission that he resumed practicing
law even without a Court order lifting his suspension, the Court finds a compelling reason to
resolve the matters raised before it even without the IBP's factual findings and recommendation
thereon.
A lawyer's suspension is not automatically lifted upon the lapse of the suspension period. The
lawyer must submit the required documents and wait for an order from the Court lifting the
suspension before he or she resumes the practice of law. Here, respondent engaged in the practice
of law without waiting for the Court order lifting the suspension order against him, and thus, he
must be held administratively liable therefor. Under Section 27, Rule 138, willful disobedience to
any lawful order of a superior court and willfully appearing as an attorney without authority to do
Legal and Judicial Ethics
Ritchelyn Smile Paderna
JDL-13
so – acts which respondent is guilty of in this case – are grounds for disbarment or suspension
from the practice of law. Anent the proper penalty to be imposed on respondent, prevailing case
law shows that the Court consistently imposed an additional suspension of six (6) months on
lawyers who continue practicing law despite their suspension. Thus, an additional suspension of
six (6) months on respondent due to his unauthorized practice of law is proper.
Gadon’s v. Robles
Lorenzo “Larry” Gadon for Misogynistic, Sexist, Abusive and Repeated Intemperate Language.
By a unanimous vote of 15-0, the Supreme Court En Banc resolved to disbar Atty. Lorenzo “Larry”
Gadon for the viral video clip where he repeatedly cursed and uttered profane remarks against
journalist Raissa Robles.
The Court Disbars Atty. Lorenzo “Larry” Gadon
Oscar Pimentel v. Legal Education Board
Petitioners in this case assail the unconstitutionality of R.A. 7662 or the Legal Education Reform
Act of 1993 which creates the Legal Education Board. Petitioners particularly seek to declare as
unconstitutional the creation of LEB itself, LEB issuances and memorandums establishing law
practice internship as a requirement for taking the bar based on Sec. 7 (g) of RA 7662, adopting a
system of continuing legal education based on Sec. 2 (2) and Sec. 7 (h) of RA 7662, and
establishing and implementing the nationwide law school aptitude test known as the Philippine
Law School Admission Test or the PhilSAT pursuant to LEB’s power to “prescribe the minimum
standards for law admission” under Sec. 7 (e) of RA 7662. Petitioners principally grounded the
petitions on LEB’s alleged encroachment upon the rulemaking power of the Court concerning the
practice of law, violation of institutional academic freedom, and violation of law school aspirant’s
right to education under the Constitution.
1. Whether the regulation and supervision of legal education belong to the Court.
2. Whether the requirement of internship for admission to Bar Examination embodied in LEB
Memorandum pursuant to Sec. 7(g) of RA 7662 is unconstitutional.
3. Whether the adoption of system of continuing legal education embodied in LEB Memorandum
pursuant to Sec. 2(2) and Sec. 7(h) of RA 7662 is unconstitutional.
4. Whether the establishment of PhilSAT embodied in LEB Memorandum pursuant to Sec. 7(e)
of RA 7662 is unconstitutional.
RULING:
Legal and Judicial Ethics
Ritchelyn Smile Paderna
JDL-13
1. NO. Regulation and supervision of legal education had been historically and consistently
exercised by the political departments. The historical development of statutes on education
unerringly reflects the consistent exercise by the political departments of the power to supervise
and regulate all levels and areas of education, including legal education. Legal education is but a
composite of the entire Philippine education system. It is perhaps unique because it is a specialized
area of study. This peculiarity, however, is no reason in itself to demarcate legal education and
withdraw it from the regulatory and supervisory powers of the political branches.
Two principal reasons militate against the proposition that the Court has the regulation and
supervision of legal education:
First, it assumes that the court, in fact, possesses the power to supervise and regulate legal
education as a necessary consequence of its power to regulate admission to the practice of law.
This assumption, apart from being manifestly contrary to the history of legal education in the
Philippines, is likewise devoid of legal anchorage.
Second, the Court exercises only judicial functions and it cannot, and must not, arrogate upon itself
a power that is not constitutionally vested to it, lest the Court itself violates the doctrine of
separation of powers. For the Court to void RA 7662 and thereafter, to form a body that regulates
legal education and place it under its supervision and control, as what petitioners suggest, is to
demonstrate a highly improper form of judicial activism.
As it is held, the Court’s exclusive rule making power under the Constitution covers the practice
of law and not the study of law. The present rules embodied in the 1997 Rules of Court do not
support the argument that the Court directly and actually regulates legal education, it merely
provides academic competency requirements for those who would like to take the Bar.
Furthermore, it is the State in the exercise of its police power that has the authority to regulate and
supervise the education of its citizens and this includes legal education.
2. YES. This requirement unduly interferes with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court to
promulgate rules concerning the practice of law and admissions thereto. The jurisdiction to
determine whether an applicant may be allowed to take the bar examinations belongs to the Court.
Under Sec. 7(g), the power of the LEB is no longer confined within the parameters of legal
education but now dabbles on the requisites for admissions to the bar. This is direct encroachment
Legal and Judicial Ethics
Ritchelyn Smile Paderna
JDL-13
upon the Court’s exclusive authority to promulgate rules concerning admissions to the bar and
should, therefore, be struck down as unconstitutional.
3. YES. By its plain language, the clause “continuing legal education” unduly give the LEB the
power to supervise the legal education of those who are already members of the bar. Inasmuch as
the LEB is authorized to compel mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers in such courses and
for such duration as the LEB deems necessary, the same encroaches upon the Court’s power to
promulgate rules concerning the Integrated Bar which includes the education of Lawyer-professors
as the teaching of law is considered the practice of law.
4. YES. Accordingly, the Court recognizes the power of the LEB under its charter to prescribe
minimum standards for law admission. The PhilSAT, when administered as an aptitude test to
guide law schools in measuring the applicant’s aptness for legal education along with such other
admissions policy that the law school may consider, is such minimum standard. However, the
PhilSAT presently operates not only as a measure of an applicant’s aptitude for law school. The
PhilSAT, as a pass or fail exam, dictates upon law schools who among the examinees are to be
admitted to any law program. When the PhilSAT is used to exclude, qualify, and restrict
admissions to law schools, as its present design mandates, the PhilSAT goes beyond mere
supervision and regulation, violates institutional academic freedom, becomes unreasonable and
therefore, unconstitutional.
Cayetano v. Monsod
Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of Chairman of
the COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments.
Commission on Appointments confirmed Monsod’s nomination. Cayetano opposed and
challenged the nomination and the subsequent confirmation of the Commission because allegedly
Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law
for at least ten years.
Whether or not Monsod possesses the required qualification for the position of Chairman of
COMELEC.
Yes, Monsod possesses the required qualification for the position. The case of Philippine Lawyers
Association v. Agrava stated that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or
litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions
and special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients
before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action
taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and
condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a
mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and
conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to
constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work
Legal and Judicial Ethics
Ritchelyn Smile Paderna
JDL-13
done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and
conditions.”
