The Supreme Court should be commended for taking the bold step of formulating the Rules regarding Limited Legal Services of lawyers
The Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) introduced for the first time Rules regarding the Limited Legal Services of Lawyers.
This was borne out of the need to make the legal services readily accessible to litigants who have no immediate access to lawyers due to poverty or lack of available legal representation.
With the nature of the legal representation being limited, it is the “expectation by the lawyer and the client that the lawyer will not provide continuing legal services in the matter.”
“In all instances, the lawyer shall state that the service being rendered is in the nature of Limited Legal Services” (Section 35, Canon III, Fidelity).
The lawyer performing such service is “appointed as counsel de officio only for arraignment purposes or special appearances to make any court submission, to give advice, to draft legal documents, to provide legal assistance before courts or administrative bodies, and the like” (Section 35).
It is worth noting that “a lawyer who renders Limited Legal Services shall be entitled to compensation as may be agreed upon or provided by the Rules of Court” (Section 35).
However, the CPRA does not prevent a lawyer from providing Limited Legal Services purely for the public good or on a pro bono basis.
“A lawyer appointed by the court as counsel de officio [of a litigant] shall not refuse to render Limited Legal Services pro bono on the ground of conflict of interest. Instead, the lawyer shall disclose to all affected parties such conflict of interest” (Section 36).
Despite the existence of a conflict of interest, a lawyer appointed as counsel de officio on pro bono basis is duty bound to make known to all concerned the existence of such.
By doing this, the lawyer is insulated from administrative liability.
“There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent or opposing interests of two or more persons. The test is whether in behalf of one client it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but which is his or her duty to oppose for the other client” (Section 13).
“[A] lawyer must cease to provide Limited Legal Services to a client when the lawyer becomes aware that there may be an actual or potential conflict of interest, except with the written informed consent of the client” (Section 38).
This is subject to the provision of Section 36, Canon III that a lawyer rendering Limited Legal Services as counsel de officio on pro bono basis shall not refuse to render such service on grounds of conflict of interest (see Section 36).
The reason why a lawyer may not refuse to render such pro bono legal services to the person concerned is “to safeguard the latter’s fundamental rights and not to deprive such person of remedies available under the law or rules” (see Section 36).
In other words, it is to protect the litigant’s right to life, liberty, and property.
“A lawyer currently serving in the government shall not be exempt from pro bono service and may be appointed by any court, tribunal, or other government agency as counsel de officio, unless prohibited by law, or the applicable Civil Service rules and regulations, or when there is a conflict of interest with government” (Section 36).
The duty to keep in confidence the information received from the client is not diminished by the Limited Legal Services provided by the lawyer.
Hence, “[a] lawyer who provides Limited Legal Services must protect the client’s private confidences to the same extent as if engaged under regular terms” (Section 37).
According to the 2019 Rules on Evidence, “[a]n attorney… cannot, without the consent of the client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment…” (Section 124 [b]).
The confidentiality extends to the attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or other persons assisting the attorney.
“[T]he Limited Legal Services terminates upon the completion of such services” (Section 38). However, the lawyer may continue to provide legal services to the litigant upon mutually acceptable terms between them, and as long as there is no conflict of interest.
“The Limited Legal Services rendered by a law student practitioner under the Clinical Legal Education Program shall be governed by the CPRA” (Section 39).
Since the law student acts under the supervision of a lawyer, he or she is bound by the same duties.
The Supreme Court should be commended for taking the bold step of formulating the Rules regarding Limited Legal Services of lawyers.
This shows genuine effort to promote and protect the rights of all people to human dignity and reducing societal inequalities.