Lawyer

, by Walter Dean Myers, is about a 16 year old Harlem boy named Steve Harmon. Steve gets tried for murder in a court of law because he supposedly was involved in the burglary/shooting of Mr. Nesbit, the convenience store clerk on December 22. Steve is wrongfully arrested, and spends time in jail awaiting his verdict, which he is found innocent for after a long trial. While in prison, Steve put his time to good use and wrote a play word for word based on his trial. This book falls under the theme of stories that expose limits.

This is true because Steve lost all hope in his case, and thought that he will be found guilty for the murder of Mr. Nesbit; however he found thestrength to push through and regain his confidence. Steve’s main inspiration was his family because he does not want to look weak in their eyes, especially his younger brother. In addition, Steve has to live in prison for a few months awaiting his verdict; he has to keep up a tough attitude to get through the daily occurrences of beat-downs, molestation and corruption.

Prison is even worse for an inmate when they are truly innocent. Steve Harmon is a very strong individual for being able to push through this whole trial without going over the edge; he coped with everything and kept sane by writing his play. Steve Harmon portrays the fear of a teenager who is in prison and portrays a confident teenager who is strong enough to pull through any adversity while having his world thrown upside down.

He portrays fear of ones life in prison because the whole book he is trying to get out of prison and to have his life back. He also convinces his lawyer of his innocence and the fact that he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. If Steve Harmon had not put any effort in, or did not convince his lawyer he was innocent, he would have rotted for his whole life in a 6 by 8 foot cell. Steve Harmon portraysconfidence because he always believed in his innocence, and would stop at nothing to convince others.

Steve’s family and lawyer, Kathy O’Brien, motivated Steve to believe in himself because they believed that he could never commit a heinous crime such as murder. I can relate to Steve Harmon because when I was elementary school I did not have much confidence in myself. For example, when I would be in plays I did not like to be on stage and perform. When Steve started his trial he didn’t have muchconfidence in himself either. Steve Harmon had such little confidence he thought he was guilty even though he was not.

As time progressed, I felt much more confident in myself to take certain risks, try new stuff and make my voice heard. I can thank my parents and friends for this accomplishment. My parents would always encourage me to try new things, speak out, and always tell me I am the best. Steve Harmon gained hisconfidence from his friends and family also, his lawyer always telling him he is going to be ok and he will be tried innocent. What this taught me about myself is family is the most important thing in your life and they can only make your life better.

In the hit book, The Pelican Brief, John Grisham’s depiction of lawyers who will do anything for money and their clients presents an interesting ethical dilemma. In the book, two Supreme Court justices are killed by a hired assassin, Khamel. FBI, CIA, and the press are working hard to find who the killer is. The only people who know the truth are attorneys from White and Blazevich, Nathaniel Jones (also known as Einstein), Jarreld Schwabe, Marty Velmano, and F. Sims Wakefield and their client, Victor Mattiece.

The action commences when Darby Shaw writes a brief about who she thinks is responsible for the deaths of two Supreme Court Justices, Rosenberg and Jensen. She shows the document to Thomas Callahan, her professor and lover. He hands the brief over to his friend Gavin Verheek, he is special council of the FBI Director. That’s the way the “Pelican Brief” goes the round through the FBI, the CIA and of course the White House. The president now has to restructure the Court because of Rosenberg and Jensen’s death. That is Victor Mattiece’s aim.

He knows that the president will chose conservative justices who will vote for Mattiece’s plans of gaining the oil in Louisiana. Mattiece also becomes aware of the “Pelican Brief” and decides to kill everyone who is involved in it to keep his plans secret. He hires the killer “Khamel” to murder Darby Shaw and Thomas Callahan. The story develops as Victor Mattiece, as well as, White and Blazevich firm attempt through either illegal or unethical measures to hire someone to kill anyone who knows about the brief and could jeopardize their plans.

It is a book, so it all ends up more-or-less happily-ever-after for the young girl and Grantham, the journalist, who meet on the island of St. Thomas after exposure of White and Blazevich and Victor Mattiece. Grantham helps Darby Shaw by publishing a story revealing involvement of White and Blazevich and Victor Mattiece in the death of the two Supreme Court Justices. However, for attorneys of White and Blazevich, one must pause and wonder what their fate, professionally speaking at least, would be after their lie exposes. For these attorneys commit a number of professional ethics iolations, all in an effort to get money. From the outset of their professional relationship with Victor Mattiece – the Supreme Court Judges – attorneys trip over ethics. “Sims: Advise client, research is complete – and the bench will sit much softer if Rosenberg is retired…Einstein found a link to Jensen, of all people…Advise further that the pelican should arrive here in four years…” (Grisham 340). This memo notifies F. Sims Wakefield, one of the partners supervising Mattiece’s case, who “…had no other clients. And no one client had as much to gain from a new Court as Mattiece” (Grisham 341).

This is an unethical practice of law where attorneys help their client plan a murder to financially benefit them and their client. One possible solution for this ethical dilemma could be refusal to help Victor Mattiece in finding out which Supreme Court Judges could be killed. Attorneys from White and Blazevich should think about the consequences of their actions. Better yet, Sims could make a complaint to appropriate authorities about receiving a memo from Einstein and at least free himself and other attorneys, while Mattiece and Einstein would go to jail.

The fee agreement between the firm and Mattiece also poses an ethical problem: “…Mattiece was not paying White and Blazevich its standard hourly rate…the firm has taken the case for a percentage of the harvest” (Grisham 339). Rule 1. 5(b) of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct states, “the basis or rate of the fee shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation” (Miller and Urisko 69). Collecting the fee up front is certainly consistent with the practices of many practical and ethical lawyers.

Unless there is a written fee agreement, and there is certainly no evidence to support the existence of one in the book, funds paid by a client at the beginning of the representation are presumed to be an advance fee payment. Advance fees, of course, must be deposited into a trust account, and withdrawn only when earned. Retainers aren’t usually “…ten percent of the net profits from the wells,” and real lawyers must know the requirement (Grisham 339). One of the solutions to this ethical dilemma could be to sign a retainer. If White and Blazevich attorneys want money, why wait?

Let Mattiece sign a retainer, pay them, and wait for Court’s decision. Nathaniel Jones (also known as Einstein), Jarreld Schwabe, Marty Velmano, and F. Sims Wakefield are all relying on being paid for their services after the decision on the case. They could save a lot of money and avoid jail if they would follow standard Model Rules. Just because F. Sims Wakefield “…was very close to Victor Mattiece and often visited him in the Bahamas,” it is not an exception to conflict-of-interest situations. Even if Victor Mattiece is a friend of F.

Sims Wakefield, he should pay for services rendered, or the attorney could refuse to provide services knowing that there could be a conflict-of-interest. The most serious of White and Blazevich attorney’s professional ethics dilemmas is one that few lawyers ever face. In the book, the attorneys do not tell anyone about Mattiece’s plan to execute the two Supreme Court Judges. The Model Rules state that “an attorney is allowed to reveal a client’s information to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm” (Miller and Urisko 99). Attorneys’ decision to hide Mattiece’s plan is good for a book, but is it professional?

This is unethical. Instead of following along with Mattiece’s plan to find a way to win his case in the Supreme Court of the United States, the attorneys could refuse to assist him in his killings plan. If Mattiece’s threat to kill does not seem to result in certain death or cause serious bodily injury, White and Blazevich they could continue representing the client without revealing any confidential information and not jeopardizing their careers. Another ethical dilemma that White and Blazevich firm faces actually leads to their indictment later, involves confidentiality agreement between the client and the firm.

A file or a document sitting on your desk, if observed by a third party, may reveal an identity of a client or enough information to suggest the client’s identity” (Miller and Urisko 102). If there is no disruption on Wakefield’s desk and secretaries are not in and out every second, Curtis Morgan, who finds the compromising memo, would not take the memo by accident. “Finally, after waiting fifteen minutes, Morgan picked up his files and documents from Wakefield’s cluttered desk, and left…as he reached for a file, he found a handwritten memo on the bottom of the stack of documents he had just brought to his office.

He had inadvertently taken it from Wakefield’s desk” (Grisham 340). This ethical dilemma could be avoided if Wakefield would not let secretaries go through his office back and forth, or let anyone put folders, files, or documents on his desk while there are other notes or documents there. If Wakefield is on the phone, he should let everyone know not to bother him. If someone comes into his office to ask to review something, he should tell them to come back. Don’t let that person mix his files with the files that he has on his desk. Unluckily for attorneys and client, lies reveal at the end of the book.

Indeed, as the book wraps up, Velmano, Schwabe, and Einstein get indicted. Wakefield commits suicide and Mattiece also gets indicted. However, they do not get such punishment without being responsible for the killing of innocent people along the way. They go through all this trouble just so that they would get financial reward. Too bad for them, their plan fails.

Works Cited: Grisham, John. The Pelican Brief. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Print. Miller, Roger LeRoy. , and Mary S. Urisko. Paralegal Today: The Essentials. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.

Upon first pondering the idea of comparing two legal journals, I automatically summoned thoughts of lugging a seventy pound book over to a table then blowing the dust off of it. In reality I found several journals to choose from, each with a few issues to select from. I chose Trial: Journal of Association of Trial Lawyers of America and Law Practice Management as my journals to compare/contrast. They were quite a stark contrast to what I imagined them to be, visually as well as in regard to content.

Though the content and themes of the two journals differed, they were written in relatively similar ocabulary levels and style. I saw no advantages in one over the other, since they cover different subjects and both would most likely prove beneficial if in the possession of a Neither journal was intimidating, as I had perceived them to be in my imagination. Both journals followed a relatively similar information layout to that of PC Monthly or Car & Truck Digest, in that they resemble a magazine with an editorial section and a “News and Trends” section.

They were both written in a vocabulary that was not heady at all in my eyes; any college student should manage reading it easily. In the case of Law Practice Management, one may need a firm grasp on financial lingo for some of the specialized articles relating to bookkeeping, but beside that, both journals were as easy to understand as Life magazine. Both journals had a special focus in each issue, with Trial mainly focusing on issues like civil rights, internet law, and other current issues that trial lawyers may not be familiar with.

Some of the actual articles were “The Violence Against Women Act”, “Police misconduct”, and “Looking at State Constitutions. ” Law Practice Management eals with topics relevant to lawyers as well as other corporate professionals that may deal with the legal profession, such as how to keep good relations with clients, how to increase your profits with legal fees. Their special feature of one issue was “Ten ways to make more money”, and another was “Keeping a life-long client.

The journal also includes a large editorial section in the front of the magazine, followed by news on current technologies pertinent to the legal field. Both journals had rather small articles, but most all questions posed were answered thoroughly. Though most articles were concise, there were no gaps in their eporting of the story. Law Practice Management was relatively straightforward and unbiased, however, Trial seemed to take a liberal stance with how they structured their articles relating to civil rights.

I took no offense to this, because I tend to take a more liberal stance on civil rights as well as other political issues. Being somewhat certain that I will continue to pursue a future as a lawyer and politician, I believe that this served as a helpful introduction to journals I may subscribe to in the future. A trial lawyer seems like an interesting profession, and Trial seems to be n easy-to-read, relaxed way of staying abreast current issues relevant to being a trial lawyer.

The articles are informative, yet do not drag on for two or four pages. The vocabulary is pretty simplistic, and should not pose an intellectual threat to any individual in the law profession. Most people in the law industry probably want to maximize their profit potentials, where upon Law Practice Management will prove beneficial. This journal, too, is easy reading, and deals with current high-tech tools helpful in the legal field, as well as informative tips on a lawyer”s people and professional skills.

?I have got a chance to visit court on 2, January 2014 with my group members Biagio Mauri for our law assignment. This is the first time of my life visiting to court and we went to magistrate court around 1pm. That court is located in 363 George Street Brisbane QLD 4001, opening and closing hours is 8:30-4:30. When we arrived infront of the court I feel alittle nervous because I have never been to any court. My group members asked me to turn off all of my electronic devices.

In entrance there are some sign of no food /drink and turn off electronic devices. I stepped into the entrance and the first thing I see is security woman with desk in front of the court. She was friendly and asked us to step back to x-ray machines which is use in airport or any other security check . Then she asked us to come one by one, so that my group member would go first and I was waiting him outside of the entrance. After she checked my group member’s bag with metal detectors as she asked me to come in and she did the same way.

After security check, we ahead to information counter and we saw some people were asking about the court room that related to their cases. So we qued for a little while and we got reach our trun. My group member requested to receptionist that we are student doing law assignment and which room we need to go. Then she said room 36 is just started and pointed us to get there. I felt so excited to get into the room as I saw auto double door to get into the room. I became noticed everyone is quiet and we took chair in last place.

Although I knew that I need to be quiet but my group member remind me to be quiet. After we sat down,I started to discover the circumstances. There were few people sitting with us. The name of the judge was Carmody T and he looked greate on his formal black suit with the white collar. His place was the highest positon of the room and he was sitting. At the second positon, I saw a typist women and she was typing about the case. At the last positon I saw one lawyer and one policeman who standing were had conversation with the judge.

I saw around 4 or 5 police infront of the 2 small glass room that they made with protective glass for protect people from the accuse abuse I guess. After I did sightseeing ,the first accuse was already got judgement . So I started focus on second accuse case and listened carefully. Before the accuse come, the lawer talked about the case. That case was nature of crime about theft case, the police woman took the accuse man from the door behind that glass room. The judge asked that accuse man that he feel gulity or not. He said he felt gulity so that judge continue ask about what he did steal.

He admited that he stolen $4658 cash from the high school. Finally the judge made the decision that he needed to give fine $2000 and sent to prison for 6 months. In conclusion, I got a lot of knowledges about the court by visiting magistrate court in brisbane Australia. I experienced about how the judge and lawyer analysis the case and the court procedure. When I left that room I did bow my head down as other people did. I realized how court is important for a countrty, if court does not exist we cannot exactly know what is justice.

Explain the selection and appointment process of solicitors and barristers (14) Solicitors are ‘front line’ lawyers who have direct access to clients, providing a wide range of legal services. They are regarded as more accessible to the public than barristers. The number of solicitors has increased by 50% in the last 10 years. There are several stages in which a solicitor has to work through before qualifying. The first stage is the Academic stage. 55% of solicitors have a law degree. Those who have a degree in another subject can take a 1 year conversion course.

Some solicitors qualify through the ILEX (Institute of Legal Executives) Once they have completed the academic stage, they must complete a professional course known as the LPC (Legal Practice Course). Here, students are taught general legal skills such as legal ethics, solicitor’s accounts, professional conduct and subject specialisms such as conveyancing, business law, family law and legal aid. Finally, all students, except ILEX students who have worked for a solicitors firm for at least 5 years, must complete a training contract.

This is normally two years where the student is attached to a practicing solicitor, like an apprenticeship. However there is fierce competition for training contracts. Once completed, they are a qualified solicitor. Barristers are specialist legal advisors and court room advocates. They are independent and trained to advise clients on the strengths and weaknesses of their case. There are more stages to the training of a barrister to that of a solicitor. The first stage is also the Academic stage.

Most barristers have a law degree, although they can also do a one year conversion course. It is necessary to belong to one of the Inns of Court in order to become a barrister. These are the Inner Temple, Middle Temple, Lincoln’s Inn and Gray’s Inn. When a trainee barrister joins one of the Inn’s they can be called ‘to the bar’ which is part of the procedure by which students become qualified barristers. The choice of Inns is personal and depends on which area of law you wish to specialise in.

On completing the Academic stage, the students then progress onto the professional course for barristers called the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC). Students study general skills as well as subjects such as civil litigation and remedies, criminal litigation and remedies etc. Next, the student is ‘called to the bar’ and undertakes the next stage of training called pupillage, which is the practical part in which the student must find an experienced barrister who they can shadow. Finally, the Barrister must then look for a tenancy, otherwise known as a ‘seat’ in Chambers from which he/she can work.

To conclude, the selection and appointment process for solicitors and barristers are quite different although they both play an important role in the Criminal Justice System. Outline the differences in the work the solicitors and barristers do Although both working within the Criminal Justice System, Solicitors and Barristers work very differently to each other. A solicitor is essentially a legal advisor who gives advice on common legal issues. There are currently over 60,000 licensed solicitors in the UK and they work closely with clients.

Solicitors are responsible for drafting letters and researching minor cases. Solicitors work much more closely with clients and they are often expected to handle the smaller, less interesting cases. While most solicitors have a specialty, such as family or commercial law, it is not essential. A solicitor is rarely expected to appear in court, unless it is a relatively minor civil issue. They are mandatorily employed by law practice firms. The other type of lawyer in the UK is a barrister. Barristers are trial lawyers. They spend most of their time either in court or researching the law.

There are far fewer barristers in the UK than there are solicitors. The position not only requires additional training, but also a talent for public speaking and presentation. Unlike solicitors, barristers do not work for a firm. Instead, they are self-employed, but they must give a portion of their pay for the use of chambers or offices that are provided by the court. To conclude, Solicitors and Barristers both work differently within the English Legal System, but it are important that they work together. For example, Solicitors must brief the Barristers on the facts so that the Barrister can prepare a case.

Ha Song Pham PSYCH 252 02/17/2012 Reaction Paper 1 on Crazy When talking about prison, one usually thinks of two kinds of people, the guards and the prisoners. But nowadays, when 16% of inmates have serious and persistent mental illness, it is not surprising to find psychiatrists working in prisons. The Miami-Dade County Pretrial Detention Center mentioned in Crazy was not an exception. On the ninth for of Miami jail, we found mentally ill prisoners, guards, Dr. Poitier who was the chief psychiatrist of the jail, and the nurses.

The medical staff and the prison officers hold opposite viewpoints about how the inmates should be treated. The great conflicts and complications between the justice system and the mental health system had made the job of the psychiatrists in prisons across the United States an extremely difficult task. Dr. Poitier and nurses on the ninth floor of Miami jail worked daily in a very unhygienic condition: “The air in C wings stinks. It is a putrefied scent, a blending of urine expectorant, persperition, excrement, blood, flatulence, and dried and discarded jailhouse food.

When the jail’s antiquated air conditioning breaks down during the summer, which it often does, some officers claim C wing’s pink wall actually sweats. It’s decades of filth and grime bubbling up, rising through coat of paint”. I wonder how one could be expected to live, let alone work in a condition as such. Under such horrible conditions, I wonder how effective the doctors were doing their job. And even if they were trying to do the best they could, I don’t think the inmates’ conditions could get any better when they did not even get to live in basic living condition which has a standard level of hygiene.

If the states were paying for the psychiatrists to treat the inmates, the first thing they should have thought about was the working conditions of the doctors and the living conditions of the inmates because those played a key role in the efficiency of one’s job and the recovery of one’s disorder. In addition to the poor working conditions, the medical staff were not treated well by both the officers and the inmates. The nurses got screamed at, threatened, and humiliated. In Crazy, Earley told the incident of one nurse having a prisoner toss a cup of feces and urine at her.

Nevertheless, the nurse did not quit the job for she understood that she could not take anything personally at her work. Most of the nurses were women. Inmates frequently masturbated in front of them. They did not get any protection from such hazard because the state attorney thought that it was not a crime that was worth pursuing. Doctors and nurses saw inmates as patients, while officers saw them as prisoners. The officers (or correctional staff as referred to in Crazy) treated the inmates very badly when the doctors were not around.

Due to the opinions that were at two extremes with each other, the efforts to help the inmates by the medical staff turned out to be useless by the poor treatment that the inmates received from the officers. On a larger scale, the psychiatrists received very little to no help from the state government. What’s more, they had to comply with the ridiculous, non-sense regulations that were originally constructed to protect the rights of the mentally ill. In Crazy, Dr. Poitier had no access to resources. The inmates were booked into jail without carrying their medical records.

He had to prescribe medication based largely on what the inmates told him. Plus, he had to follow the Miami-Dade County Public Health Trust’s instruction to prescribe Risperdal first whenever possible rather than Zyprexa, which was much more expensive. He had no freedom to do his job even though he received sufficient psychiatric training, while those people at the health trust were only thinking about the “so-called” economic benefits. Civil right laws such as Baker Act prevented the doctors from forcing inmates to take medication unless they posed an imminent danger or a threat. Dr.

Poitier was very disappointed by the Act. He stated that: “A person who is a chronic schizophrenic doesn’t have the full control over his thoughts. He can’t make rational decision. If you release him untreated back into the community, you aren’t protecting his civil rights. You’re condemning him to stay sick and a horrible life of suffering on the streets. ” The Baker Act was particularly complex when viewing it at different angles. For psychiatrists like Dr. Poitier, it hindered them from treating the inmates. They believed that the inmates were not mentally healthy enough to make ecisions about whether or not they wanted to to treated. On the contrary, public defenders and civil rights attorney felt that they had to protect the constitutional rights of the mentally ill. But what if what the mentally ill chose to do went against the wish of their loved ones, and negatively affected community. “Acting crazy is not a choice”. The mentally ill didn’t choose to be crazy. I couldn’t help but wonder what exactly these attorneys were trying to protect here. Were they trying to say protect a choice that no one wished to make?

But after all, I did not experience a mental illness, which would invalidate any opinions I would have about how a mentally ill person would feel or react. In the end, there was a price to everything. One could not expect to do a thing without having to face a trade-off. The decisions should be made in a way that benefited most people as it possibly could. Even though I was fully aware that the psychiatrists in the prisons were doing their best to help the inmates, I believed it was better if they understood the job that they were doing involved more parties than them and the inmates.

In Crazy, Dr. Poitier pointed out that: “My first concern is restoring this man’s mental health. But that is not the first concern of the lawyers, or of the judge who will be making this decision. This should be a medical matter, not a legal issue”. I didn’t think that was just a medical issue. Doctors alone would not be able to help the mentally ill without the support of other forces. Where would they find the resources such as medication, facilities, accommodation to assist the patients without the regulation or policy that allowed them to do so? It was never one man’s business.

It took the cooperation of a whole system in order to effectively help the mentally ill who also happened to commit crime. Despite innumerable difficulties and controversies involved in their jobs, the doctors and nurses were getting paid much less than the medical staff in mainstream hospitals. For example, the nurses on the ninth floor earned an average of $2,000 per year less then their counterparts in Miami hospitals. Part of the reason was because they were recent immigrants who had received their formal qualifications in a country other than the US.

Working in the section for the mentally ill in a prison was certainly not their first choice nor their second nor their third. It could be the only option that they had. However, they did not complain about their jobs. They did not go on strike. They did not sue the states for providing such little support. Instead, they were doing as much as they possible could to help the inmates. Dr. Poitier addressed inmates as “Mr. ” to show them respect. He asked very common questions that a doctor usually asked a patient: “How are you feeling today? He was treating the inmates as patients who needed help, and did not care whether they were also criminals or not. For him, they were just very ill people who needed medical help. He once said: “Most mentally ill inmates do stupid things, not bad things”. Dr. Poitier believed that the inmates on the ninth floor needed help that they would not get there. I wonder if he ever felt hopeless when he knew these people needed help, and he could give help, but those two things certainly would not happen in the prison. The inmates were unable to understand that Dr.

Poitier was trying to help them because of their dysfunction. Dr. Poitier was fully aware that he would not be able to do much to help the inmates because of messiness of the system and the daily conflicts between doctors and prison officers. They were stuck in a place where no one was better off. The question that baffled me the most was why they decided to stay at their jobs. There must have been something great and meaningful that made them almost irrationally continue their work. In Crazy, Dr. Poitier answered this question for me: “The inmates who end up here have been given up on.

But some can and do get better. And that’s the driving force that keeps me coming to work each day – knowing I can make a difference. Knowing I do make a difference. Besides, if I didn’t do this, who would? ” No matter how much trouble and confusion the job has brought, Dr. Poitier and the psychiatrists in general have managed to put their work ethics on top of everything else. Thanks to them, the mentally ill inmates get the support that keeps them through the days. Otherwise, the prison could actually become the hell hole on earth. It takes a lot of efforts in order to do good in any jobs.

But for the psychiatrists in prisons across the United States, they have to go to extra lengths in order to help the mentally ill inmates. However, their efforts alone are never enough, every other force involved in the system has to do their best as well. In addition, it is importance that they all try to come to understand each other’s job and the reason behind it so that they can make the whole system work for the inmates instead of the current climate when the mentally ill are stuck in the revolving doors of the jails and the hospitals.

KHAN, JR. V SIMBILLO YNARES-SANTIAGO; August 19, 2003 (apple maramba) NATURE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court and SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari. FACTS – Atty. Rizalino Simbillo publicized his legal services in the July 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer via a paid advertisement which read: “Annulment of Marriage Specialist 532-4333/521-2667. ” – A staff member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court took notice and called the number posing as an interested party. She spoke to Mrs.

Simbillo, who said that her husband was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four to six months, and that the fee was P48,000. – Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public Information Office revealed that similar ads were published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Star. – Atty. Ismael Khan, Jr. , in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office filed an administrative complaint against Atty.

Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation in violation of Rule 2. 03 and Rule 3. 01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. – The case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. – IBP found respondent guilty – Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied – Hence, this petition for certiorari ISSUE WON Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule 2. 03 and Rule 3. 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court HELD Yes. Petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for one year and was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. Ratio The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money is the primary consideration. Reasoning – Rule 2. 03 – A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business. – Rule 3. 1 – A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, selflaudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. – Rule 138, Sec 27 of the Rules of Court states: Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime nvolving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so. – The following elements distinguish legal profession from business: 1. A duty of public service 2. A relation as an “officer of the court” to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability 3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary 4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to esort to current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients. – Respondent advertised himself as an “Annulment Specialist,” and by this he undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage —encouraging people who might have otherwise been disinclined and would have refrained form dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so. – Solicitation of legal business sis not altogether proscribed, however, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession.