By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III
The main character in John Grisham’s novel entitled The Rainmaker which became a movie of the same title, and which starred Matt Damon as the neophyte lawyer, Rudy Baylor, had a side-kick played by Danny De Vito.
Danny De Vito’s role was not a lawyer but he was dispensing legal advice; and worse, chasing after clients in clear ambulance-chasing fashion.
At one point, he was asked if he was a lawyer, and his answer was: “I’m a para-lawyer!”
Of course, there is no such thing in the legal world. There is the paralegal who has logged in some legal training, and can legally assist a lawyer in a case, but there is no “para-lawyer”.
Or, maybe there is. But not in the legal sense.
I was in one of the pastry shops cum coffee shop in SM City, Iloilo, last weekend enjoying my pepperoni pizza to go with my hot americano, when a group of customers from the next table started having a discussion about a brewing case of “non-bailable” estafa cases they will be filing.
Among the group, the most vocal one was explaining to the others, that there are three branches of government and that in one branch, it is there where the cases will be filed.
Fine.
Yet sometime later, he said there was a need to send two (2) initial demand letters and one (1) final demand to the supposed culprits.
Of course, there is no law nor rule which requires the sending of a total of three (3) demand letters in an estafa case. A single demand would do. This was the giveaway that the one giving legal advice is not a lawyer.
The incident reminds of the attorney-client privilege rule which prohibits a lawyer from divulging confidential matters that he/ she has learned because of the legal engagement. The rule used to apply only to licensed lawyers but not to “para-lawyers”.
But perhaps because of the prevalence of activities like the one I witnessed last weekend, the attorney-client privilege rule’s legal wingspan had been expanded to include “para-lawyers”.
Sec. 24, Rule 130 of A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC or the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, which envisages the disqualification by reason of privileged communications rule now covers not only lawyers but also “a person reasonably believed by the client to be licensed to engage in the practice of law”, thus:
“An attorney or person reasonably believed by the client to be licensed to engage in the practice of law 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, nor can an attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or other persons assisting the attorney be examined without the consent of the client and his or her employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity”.
The dangers of such kinds of ‘legal’ advice being offered by “para-lawyers” could be too many to include in this article. But suffice it to state that there should be a stronger law to protect would-be clients from being enticed to pin their cases on false hopes that “para-lawyers” would dangle. Worse, should ‘legal’ steps be taken by the “para-lawyer”, which could do more harm than good, it would make the case worse instead of better thus making it difficult for the true lawyer to handle.
It also leaves a bitter, if not bad taste, to the mouth of a real lawyer listening to ‘legal’ advice being dispensed openly in public and within everyone’s ear shot by a non-lawyer.
Again, the Rules on Evidence just stated provides a warning that “The communication shall remain privileged, even in the hands of a third person who may have obtained the information, provided that the original parties to the communication took reasonable precaution to protect its confidentiality”.
But in a public place like a crowded mall, it would be hard to sell the argument that precaution to protect confidentiality was taken. Thus, all the discussions made will not be considered confidential which cheapens the case and the legal profession altogether.
Something must be done to curb the illegal practice of law and it must be done soon.
For now, “para-lawyers” are like unregistered motor vehicles driven by unlicensed drivers. Their licenses cannot be confiscated as they don’t have licenses to begin with.
Instead, while “on the road”, the “para-lawyers” must be apprehended and their “vehicles” impounded permanently.
(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates- a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).
