Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ulep vs. Legal Clinic
Ulep vs. Legal Clinic
FACTS:
Petitioner (member of the bar) prays for the Court to order the respondent to cease and desist
from issuing the following advertisements, for being champertous, unethical, and demeaning:
o Annex A: “P560.00 for a valid marriage; info on Divorce, Absence, Annulment, Visa.”
o Annex B: an ad claiming that Guam Attorney Don Parkinson is giving free books on
Guam Divorce, through the Legal Clinic.
Respondent admitted publication of these advertisements, but claims it is not engaged in the
practice of law, but only in rendering “legal support services” through paralegals and computers.
o Furthermore, respondent argues that these services advertized are legal, in light of the
case John R. Bates and Van O’Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona.
ISSUE/S:
W/N the services offered by respondent as advertized constitutes a practice of law?
W/N the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements?
JUDGMENT: The Court resolves to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN respondent from issuing or causing the
publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form for the same tenor and purpose.