Introduction

In a plethora of cases decided by the Supreme Court, the court constantly reminded lawyers
that the practice of law is a profession and not a business; lawyers should not advertise their
talents as merchants advertise their wares. The legal profession is imbued with public interest
that public service is of paramount consideration. The canon of the profession tell us that the
best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity 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. Of course, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited. The
canons of the profession enumerate exceptions to the rule against advertising or solicitation and
define the extent to which they may be undertaken.

In the case of ULEP vs Legal Clinic (Bar Matter No. 553), the court expressly provides the
exception to the general rule against advertising. The first of such exceptions is the publication
in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the
canons, of brief biographical and informative data. "Such data must not be misleading and may
include only a statement of the lawyer's name and the names of his professional associates;
addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of law practiced; date and place of
birth and admission to the bar; schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other
educational distinction; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal authorships; legal
teaching positions; membership and offices in bar associations and committees thereof, in legal
and scientific societies and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the
names and addresses of references; and, with their written consent, the names of clients
regularly represented. The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The
card may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is connected
with, address, telephone number and special branch of law practiced.

In sum, it is undoubtedly misbehaviour on the part of the lawyer, subject to disciplinary action, to
advertise his services except in allowable instances. However, with the evolution of advertising
and the emergence of others means like social media particularly facebook, twitter, instagram
and etc. to advertise a service or a product, it can be observed nowadays that some lawyers
already ventured to such means like appearing in radio and television programs, Facebook, and
twitter for the purpose of rendering their legal expertise on a particular subject matter. Is this
allowed? Is this a violation to the Code of Professional Responsibility against advertising? Or
these are exceptions or allowable instances laid down in the case of ULEP vs Legal Clinic?
Analysis

In the case of Linsangan vs Atty Tolentino (AC No. 6672), the court held “To allow a lawyer to
advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the
public estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character of service to which
every member of the bar is called.

It is submitted that the practice of some lawyers in appearing before radio and television
programs and also broadcasting in the social media on an issue which requires their legal
knowledge constitutes an indirect solicitation and advertising. Although they are not directly
promoting their profession like merchants does, however, appearing in the media or social
media creates an impression to the minds of the audience as regards the competence and the
expertise of such lawyer. It goes without saying that even though the lawyer haven’t mention
anything about the promotion of his services or his expertise in a radio or television program but
the current situation strongly suggest otherwise. The lawyer is under a situation where a number
of people are listening or watching, the mode of coverage is so vast that it can reach the
majority if not all of the populace. If the lawyer delivers that astonishing response to an issue
confronting him, then that number of people in front of the latter will be at awe of his skills and
expertise thereby improving his reputation which also suggests that there is indirect advertising.

Further, jurisprudence provides that the Supreme Court continues to adhere to the very archaic
doctrine prohibiting any form of advertising direct or indirect. In the case of Canlas vs Court of
Appeals (GR L-77691) the court held , the canon of the profession tell us that the best
advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity 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.

Conclusion

Therefore, it is my humble opinion that lawyers should refrain from appearing in the media or
social media since it constitutes a violation of the code of professional responsibility.
Further, in Canlas vs Court of Appeals (GR L-77691), the court
held that lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not merchants, a
fundamental standard that has, as a matter of judicial notice, eluded not a few law advocates. The
petitioner’s efforts partaking of a "shakedown" of his own client are not becoming of a lawyer and
certainly, do not speak well of his fealty to his oath to "delay no man for money."

It is true that lawyers are entitled to make a living, in spite of the fact that the practice of law is not a
commercial enterprise; but that does not furnish an excuse for plain lust for material wealth, more so
at the expense of another. Law advocacy, we reiterate, is not capital that yields profits. The returns it
births are simple rewards for a job done or service rendered. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile
pursuits which enjoy a greater deal of freedom from government interference, is impressed with a
public interest, for which it is subject to State regulation.

The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . . 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. We repeat, the canon of the profession
tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional
capacity 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.