Topic: Solicitation of Legal Services

Case Title: Ralf J. Geffen, Plaintiff Cross-Defendant and Appellant vs. Russel J. Moss,
Defendant Cross-Complainant and Respondent.

GR No. Civ. 46079

Date: November 24, 1975
Ponencia: Allport, Acting Presiding Judge
Facts: Attorney Geffen was designated as a United States magistrate, thus, precluding him
from continuing his private practice of law. Geffen then decided to sell his physical assets
involving his law practice to Moss for $27,500. It includes Geffen’s entire law library, all
furniture and equipment, and all the cases and legal matters subject to the approval of his
respective clients. Also, Geffen expressed his intention to exert his influence for the
continued welfare of the practice and to encourage present and former clients to utilize the
legal services of the law office in the future
$15,000 was paid but the remaining balance in the amount of $12,500 was not paid;
thus’ this case.
Issue: Whether or not the sale of expectation of future patronage of Geffen’s former clients to
encourage them to patronize Moss is valid.
Held: No. The sale of expectation of future patronage of Geffen’s former clients to Moss is
invalid. Under Rule 3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, it prohibits an attorney from
remunerating another for either “soliciting” or “obtaining” employment for him. Whether or
not a lay intermediary solicits the business referred, he may not keep the best interests of the
clients paramount when he profits from his referrals. He is likely to refer claimants, not to the
most competent attorney, but to the one who is compensating him.
Even though such agreement is not contrary to public policy, the court ruled in a similar
jurisprudence, Lyon vs Lyon that:
"The nature of a professional partnership for the practice of law, the reputation of which
depends on the skill, training and experience of each individual member, and the personal and
confidential relationship existing between each such member and the client, places such a
partnership in a class apart from other business and professional partnerships. The legal
profession stands in a peculiar relation to the public and the relationship existing between the
members of the profession and those who seek its services cannot be likened to the
relationship of a merchant to his customer. Thus, our research has brought to light no case in
this jurisdiction in which an allowance was made to a partner for goodwill upon the
dissolution of a partnership created for the practice of law."