Ilustre, France Bienelle C.

JD-1

REACTION PAPER

Compensation for Legal Services by Atty. Florimond C. Rous

It is a well-accepted principle that practice of law is not money-making venture and that
the main purpose of a lawyer is to administer justice and to serve the people with dignity and
honesty. However, a lawyer is still entitled to demand a reasonable compensation for his
services rendered. At first, this may sound confusing. I admit I also have been confused on
these statements because if indeed practice of law is not a money-making venture, why should
the lawyer be given money as compensation for his services. Why is there a need to determine
reasonable compensation if the services of a lawyer can be made pro bono considering that his
main purpose is for administration of justice and not for profit? All of these things were clearly
answered upon careful reading and understanding of the Annotation of Atty. Florimond C. Rous
entitled “Compensation for Legal Services”.

From the annotation of Atty. Rous, I have been given a better view and understanding
on the matter above mentioned. I learned that it does not follow that because practice of law is
not for business or for profit, a lawyer is already precluded from receiving compensation. Every
contract of employment just like the contract of legal services requires a compensation for
services rendered. The basis of this right for compensation rests primarily on the fact of
employment, whether under an express or implied contract with the person sought to be
charged. However, it has also been stated in the annotation that there are instances wherein a
lawyer may not be compensated. One instance is whenever such services were rendered
without the clients’ knowledge or consent or even against their protest and another is when
circumstances show that services of a lawyer were intended to be gratuitous.

In addition, the amount to be paid for services of a lawyer can be made in an oral and/or
written contract. If it is done orally without the benefit of a written contract, there must be an
implied promise on the part of the client to pay a reasonable compensation for the services
rendered by the lawyer. Sometimes, I also had my own inquiry with regard to this matter. What if
there is neither a written contract for compensation nor an implied promise on the part of the
client to pay reasonable compensation and the client refuses to pay the same, what would be
the recourse of a lawyer? I became enlightened on this matter after careful reading of the
annotation. It occurred to me that in the absence of such written or express promise to pay do
not, in any manner, prejudice the right to compensation of a lawyer where the employment is
fairly made out from all the attendant circumstances. In this case, the courts are authorized to
determine what constitutes a reasonable compensation on the basis of the quantum meruit
which means “as much as he deserves” for the value of services rendered.

I also learned from the annotation that the high standards of the legal profession as
prescribed by the law and the Canons of Professional Ethics limit the lawyer’s freedom in fixing
his professional fees. It is within the power of the Court to regulate the fees of a lawyer’s
professional services, depending upon the circumstances of each case. If it is found that
compensation is unconscionable or unreasonable, the Court will be the one to determine what
would be reasonable for the services rendered by the lawyer. I believe that this is made to
protect both the interest of the lawyer and the client. Although money is not the main purpose of
legal profession, it is still suffice that a lawyer as a worker/employee be given reasonable
compensation for services rendered in order for him to earn a living.

The annotation also tackles the kinds of attorney’s fees and the attorney’s liens. The
kinds of attorney’s fees are (1) contingent fees and (2) champertous fees. Contingent fee are
those agreed upon by the parties subject to the stipulation that the attorney will be paid for his
legal services only if the suit or litigation succeeds whereas the champertous fee is that
recoverable under a contract whereby the lawyer undertakes the prosecution of a suit at his own
expense to recover things or property claimed by the client, agreeing to look solely to a certain
percentage of the recovery for his compensation, without any right to receive anything for
services when the suit fails. Honestly, when I was reading the annotation, I feel that it’s really a
risk for a lawyer to enter into a contingent fee and champertous fee contracts. However, I salute
the lawyers for doing so since these kind of contracts are the only means by which the poor and
helpless may be able to seek redress of their grievances whenever their rights are violated.
Poverty invariably prevents persons injured through the negligence of others from securing the
services of counsel to protect and enforce their rights. Hence, it is rightful that these persons be
afforded counsel who would protect their rights regardless of the amount to be paid for the
latter’s services.

Aside from these, a lawyer is also entitled to a lien for his compensation upon his client’s
funds and papers in his possession in the course of his professional employment and upon any
judgment or recovery obtained during his services. The two kinds of attorney’s liens are (1)
retaining lien and (2) charging lien. A retaining lien is the right of an attorney to retain the funds,
documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession professionally
until the balance of his fees for his professional services are paid. On the other hand, the
charging lien is the equitable right of the attorney to have the fees due him for services in a
particular suit secured by the judgment or recovery in such suit.

The annotation also discussed the attorney’s fees as costs and as damages. Well, as for
the allowable costs per courts level which are mentioned in the annotation, I could say that
those costs no longer exist considering our present time and that today, those costs are already
insignificant. As for the attorney’s fees for damages, I learned that as a rule attorney’s fees are
not allowed as an element of damages. Before, I have encountered cases wherein there are
attorney’s fees attached as damages which are to be paid by the defendant and sometimes I
inquire about why these fees should still be part of damages prayed for by plaintiff. Now, I have
been full enlightened as I read the annotation.

To sum up, the annotation regarding the compensation for legal services is very helpful
considering that I have been fully informed and enlightened on the matter. Indeed, it is still
important to know what a reasonable compensation for a lawyer is and how they are
compensated for services they have rendered. After all, a lawyer is still entitled for
compensation just like any other workers notwithstanding the principle that legal profession is
not a business or money-making venture.