Dacanay Vs BakerandMcKenzie

You might also like

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

Dacanay vs Baker& McKenzie

FACTS: Atty. Dacanay sought to enjoin Juan Collas and nine other lawyers from practicing law under the
name Baker and McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois. In 1979 respondent Vicente A. Torres used
the letterhead of Baker& McKenzie which contains the names of the ten lawyers asking Rosie Clurman
for the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client. Atty. Dacanay
replied denying any liability of Clurman and asking the lawyer his purpose of using the letterhead of
another law office.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondents should enjoin from practising law under the firm name Baker &
McKenzie.

HELD: YES. Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1,
Rule 138, Rules of Court).

Who may practice law. - Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar,
or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and
regular standing, is entitledto practice law.

Respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that being associated
with the firm they could "render legal services of the highest quality to multinational business
enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment" which the Court finds unethical
because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practise law here.

WHEREFORE, the respondents are enjoined from practising law under the firm name Baker &
McKenzie.

You might also like