RIZALINO FERNANDEZ v. ATTY. REYNALDO NOVERO, JR.Mendoza, J: RIZALINO FERNANDEZ v. ATTY. REYNALDO NOVERO, JR.Mendoza, J: Facts:
Facts:
Rizalino Fernandez and others filed a disbarment case against Atty. Reynaldo Novero, Jr. for alleged patentand gross Rizalino Fernandez and others filed a disbarment case against Atty. Reynaldo Novero, Jr. for alleged patentand gross neglect in the handling of their civil case against the Bacolod City Water istrict.!he complainant imp"ted that the neglect in the handling of their civil case against the Bacolod City Water istrict.!he complainant imp"ted that the respondent did not attend the sched"led hearing nor see# apostponement, for $hich reason the trial co"rt considered respondent did not attend the sched"led hearing nor see# apostponement, for $hich reason the trial co"rt considered respondent to have $aived f"rther presentation of hisevidence and directed him to formally offer his e%hibits. &o$ever, respondent to have $aived f"rther presentation of hisevidence and directed him to formally offer his e%hibits. &o$ever, respondent failed to formally offer his e%hibits,prompting the trial co"rt to order the dismissal of the case. !he respondent respondent failed to formally offer his e%hibits,prompting the trial co"rt to order the dismissal of the case. !he respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of theorder of dismissal ho$ever he did not file his motion $ithin the reglementary period. filed a motion for reconsideration of theorder of dismissal ho$ever he did not file his motion $ithin the reglementary period. &e even tried to shift the blameon complainant by claiming that the latter insisted on presenting his sister from 'anila as &e even tried to shift the blameon complainant by claiming that the latter insisted on presenting his sister from 'anila as their last $itness. !he tr"th$as that complainant(s sister had already testified.!he respondent s"bmitted his Ans$er and their last $itness. !he tr"th$as that complainant(s sister had already testified.!he respondent s"bmitted his Ans$er and averred that the complaint filed against him $as baseless, p"relymalicio"s and spec"lative considering the fact that it $as averred that the complaint filed against him $as baseless, p"relymalicio"s and spec"lative considering the fact that it $as not made "nder oath. &e contended that complainantengaged his legal services after the first co"nsel had $ithdra$n and not made "nder oath. &e contended that complainantengaged his legal services after the first co"nsel had $ithdra$n and he had no #no$ledge of $hat had happened inthe case before he handled it beca"se complainant did not f"rnish him $ith he had no #no$ledge of $hat had happened inthe case before he handled it beca"se complainant did not f"rnish him $ith the records and stenographic notes of theprevio"s proceedings despite his repeated re)"ests. &e alleged that he failed to the records and stenographic notes of theprevio"s proceedings despite his repeated re)"ests. &e alleged that he failed to formally offer the e%hibits beca"secomplainant tried to ta#e over the handling of the case by insisting on presenting more formally offer the e%hibits beca"secomplainant tried to ta#e over the handling of the case by insisting on presenting more $itnesses $ho failed toappear d"ring trial.!he *ffice of the Bar Confidant s"bmitted a report finding respondent g"ilty of $itnesses $ho failed toappear d"ring trial.!he *ffice of the Bar Confidant s"bmitted a report finding respondent g"ilty of vio
violatlation ion of of the the CodCode e of +rof +rofesofessiosional nal ResResponsponsibiibilitlity y and and recrecommommendiending ng his his s"ss"spenspensionion.!h.!he e ntntegregrated ated Bar Bar of of thethe +hilippines also s"bmitted a report and recommendation for the s"spension of respondent from the practice of la$ for a +hilippines also s"bmitted a report and recommendation for the s"spension of respondent from the practice of la$ for a period of si% -/ months.
period of si% -/ months. Issue:
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is g"ilty of gross neglect in the handling of the civil case0 Whether or not respondent is g"ilty of gross neglect in the handling of the civil case0 Hed:
Hed:
!he 1"preme Co"rt held that a co"nsel m"st constantly #eep in mind that his actions or omissions, evenmalfeasance or !he 1"preme Co"rt held that a co"nsel m"st constantly #eep in mind that his actions or omissions, evenmalfeasance or nonfeasance $o"ld be binding on his client. A la$yer o$es to the client the e%ercise of "tmostpr"dence and capability in nonfeasance $o"ld be binding on his client. A la$yer o$es to the client the e%ercise of "tmostpr"dence and capability in that representation.!he respondent(s attempt to evade responsibility by shifting the blame on complainant d"e to the that representation.!he respondent(s attempt to evade responsibility by shifting the blame on complainant d"e to the lat
latterter(sf(sfailail"re "re to to t"rt"rn n oveover r to to him him recrecordords s and and stestenognograpraphic hic notnotes es of of the the cascase e onlonly y highighlihlights his ghts his incincompompeteetencence andinade)"acy in handling the complainant(s case.!he respondent Atty. Novero is fo"nd g"ilty of neglect of his client(s andinade)"acy in handling the complainant(s case.!he respondent Atty. Novero is fo"nd g"ilty of neglect of his client(s case and is 1"spended from thepractice of la$ for one -2/ month $ith Warning that repetition of the same negligent act $ill case and is 1"spended from thepractice of la$ for one -2/ month $ith Warning that repetition of the same negligent act $ill be dealt $ith even moreseverely
be dealt $ith even moreseverely
!"# ROLLON v NAVALFA$T% !"# ROLLON v NAVALFA$T%
R*33*N, together $ith her 1*N, $ent to the office of A!!4 NARA5A3 to see# his assistance in a case R*33*N, together $ith her 1*N, $ent to the office of A!!4 NARA5A3 to see# his assistance in a case filed againsther -Collection of 1"m of 'oney/
filed againsther -Collection of 1"m of 'oney/
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, 6ana3opez, 'endiola, 'orada, Rivas, 1arenas Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, 6ana3opez, 'endiola, 'orada, Rivas, 1arenas 7C7C
386A3 8!&C1 386A3 8!&C1 7 7 nd nd 1em 799:;799 1em 799:;799
After going thro"gh the doc"ments, A!
After going thro"gh the doc"ments, A!!4 NARA!4 NARA55A3 agreed to be R*33*N<1 la$yer and re)"ired her A3 agreed to be R*33*N<1 la$yer and re)"ired her toto pay+=,999 as filing and partial service fee
pay+=,999 as filing and partial service fee
As per
As per instr"ction of A!instr"ction of A!!4 NARA!4 NARA5A5A3, R*33*N<1 1*N 3, R*33*N<1 1*N ret"rned to his ret"rned to his office to follo$ "p office to follo$ "p ho$ever Aho$ever A!!4!!4 NARA
NARA55A3tolA3told the 1*N that d the 1*N that he $as not able he $as not able to act on the to act on the case beca"se he case beca"se he $as b"sy$as b"sy
After
After several several follo$;"ps follo$;"ps and and still still no no action, action, R*33*N R*33*N decided decided to to $ithdra$ $ithdra$ the the amo"nt amo"nt paid paid to to AA!!4!!4 NARA5A3 forfail"re of the latter to comply $ith their m"t"al agreement
NARA5A3 forfail"re of the latter to comply $ith their m"t"al agreement
the +=,999paid by R*33*N beca"se he has no money
R*33*N decided to refer the matter to the B+ +resident of avao City
N581!6A!N6 C*''11*N8R> s"spend for 2 year for neglect of d"ty and?or violation of Canons 2: and 2=
B+ B*AR *F 6*58RN*R<1 R81*3@!*N> s"spend for 7 years for violation of Canons 2: and 2= and restit"tion of +=,999
I % % & E ' ( N A T T Y N A R A V A L % H O & L D
) E R E * R I M A N D E D H E L D Y E % , F O R V I O L A T I O N O F R & L E ! # . " # A N D $ A N O N % ! + , ! - ! RATIO
*rdinarily, la$yers are not obliged to act either as advisers or as advocates of any person $ho may $ish tobecome their client. !hey may decline employment and ref"se to accept representation, if they are not in aposition to carry it o"t effectively and competently. B"t once they agree to handle a case, attorneys are re)"iredby the Canons of +rofessional Responsibility to "nderta#e the tas# $ith zeal, care and "tmost devotion.
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney client;relationship and gives rise to the d"ty of fidelityto a client<s ca"se. And every case accepted by a la$yer deserves f"ll attention, diligence, s#ill and competence.&ence, practicing la$yers may accept only as may cases as they can efficiently handle. *ther$ise, their clients$o"ld be p re"diced.
n the case at bar, records sho$ that after receiving +=,999, A!!4 NARA5A3 failed to render any legal service toR*33*N and despite R*33*N<1 repeated demands, A!!4 NARA5A3 failed to ret"rn the files of the case that hadbeen entr"sted to him and #ept the money R*33**N had li#e$ise entr"sted to him
F"rthermore, after going thro"gh her papers, A!!4 NARA5A3 sho"ld have given R*33*N a candid opinion on themerits and stat"s of the case. Apparently, the civil s"it against R*33*N had been decided against her and hadlong become final e%ec"tory. &o$ever, A!!4 NARA5A3 $ithheld s"ch vital information from R*33*N and evendemanded +=,999 as filing and service fee giving her hope that her case $o"ld be acted "pon.
J&D/MENT
Atty. Camilo Naraval is fo"nd 6@3!4
of violating R"le 2:.9: and Canons 2, 2 and 2= of the Code of +rofessionalResponsibility and is hereby 1@1+8N8
from the practice of la$ for a period of t$o -7/ years, effective "pon hisreceipt of this ecision. F"rthermore, he is
*R8R8 !* R81!!@!8,
$ithin thirty -9/ days from notice of thisecision, complainant<s eight tho"sand pesos -+=,999/, pl"s interest thereon, at the rate of si% percent perann"m, from *ctober 2=, 7999, "ntil f"lly paid.
+ NA0*IL v VALDE% Facts>
Jose Na#pil $as interested in a piece of property sit"ated in 'oran, Bag"io. &e $ent into an agreement $ith Atty.Carlos 5aldes for the latter to b"y the property in tr"st for Na#pil.
5aldes did b"y the property by contracting 7 loans. !he lands< titles $ere transferred to his name.
When Jose Na#pil died, melda Na#pil -his $ife/ ac)"ired the services of 5aldes and his acco"nting and la$ firmsfor the settlement of the estate of Jose Na#pil.
What 5aldes did $as to e%cl"de the property in Bag"io from the list of assets of Jose Na#pil -he act"allytransferred the property to his company, the Caval Realty Corporation/ $hile incl"ding the loans he contracted.
What melda did $as to file a s"it for reconveyance in the CF. While the case $as pending, melda also filed anadministrative complaint for disbarment against 5aldes.
!he CF dismissed the action for reconveyance. !he CA reversed the CF.
!he complaint for reconveyance $ent "p to the 1C and $as decided in favor of Na#pil. !he 1C held that 5aldesonly held the lots in tr"st for Na#pil.ss"e>
W?n Atty. 5aldes sho"ld be administratively sanctioned for his acts, namely>
o
8%cl"ding the property in Bag"io from the estate of Jose Na#pilD
o
ncl"ding his loans as claims on the estateD and
o
Apparently, representing conflicting interests $hen his acco"nting firm prepared the list of claims of creditors Angel Na#pil and 8N*RN against the estate of Jose Na#pil, $hich $as represented by his la$firm.&eld>
!he 1C fo"nd 5aldes g"ilty of miscond"ct and s"spends him for 2 year.
!he Co"rt held that the first t$o acts clearly sho$ that 5aldes bro#e the tr"st reposed on him by melda Na#pil$hen the latter agreed to "se his professional services as a la$yer and an acco"ntant. t $as clear that JoseNa#pil and Atty. Came to an agreement that the latter $o"ld be b"ying the property in tr"st for Jose. By his act of e%cl"ding the property from the estate and incl"ding the loans he contracted -and "sed for his o$n benefit/ asclaims, 5aldes too# for granted the tr"st formed bet$een Jose and him -they had a close relationship since the:9<s/, $hich $as the basis for melda<s decision to "se his services.
As to the third charge, $e hold respondent g"ilty of representing conflicting interests $hich is proscribed byCanon 2: R"le 2:.9. n the case at bar, there is no )"estion that the interests of the estate and that of its
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, 6ana3opez, 'endiola, 'orada, Rivas, 1arenas 7C
386A3 8!&C1 7
nd
1em 799:;799
creditors are adverse to each other. RespondentEs acco"nting firm prepared the list of assets and liabilities of theestate and, at the same time, comp"ted the claims of t$o creditors of the estate. !here is clearly a conflictbet$een the interest of the estate $hich stands as the debtor, and that of the t$o claimants $ho are creditors of the estate
!"# ROLLON v NAVALFA$T%
filed againsther -Collection of 1"m of 'oney/
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, 6ana3opez, 'endiola, 'orada, Rivas, 1arenas 7C
386A3 8!&C1 7
nd
1em 799:;799
After going thro"gh the doc"ments, A!!4 NARA5A3 agreed to be R*33*N<1 la$yer and re)"ired her to pay+=,999 as filing and partial service fee
As per instr"ction of A!!4 NARA5A3, R*33*N<1 1*N ret"rned to his office to follo$ "p ho$ever A!!4 NARA5A3told the 1*N that he $as not able to act on the case beca"se he $as b"sy
After several follo$;"ps and still no action, R*33*N decided to $ithdra$ the amo"nt paid to A!!4 NARA5A3 forfail"re of the latter to comply $ith their m"t"al agreement
A!!4 NARA5A3 said that he co"ld not ret"rn the doc"ments beca"se the same $ere in his ho"se and the +=,999paid by R*33*N beca"se he has no money
R*33*N decided to refer the matter to the B+ +resident of avao City
N581!6A!N6 C*''11*N8R> s"spend for 2 year for neglect of d"ty and?or violation of Canons 2: and 2=
B+ B*AR *F 6*58RN*R<1 R81*3@!*N> s"spend for 7 years for violation of Canons 2: and 2= and restit"tion of +=,999
I % % & E ' ( N A T T Y N A R A V A L % H O & L D
) E R E * R I M A N D E D H E L D Y E % , F O R V I O L A T I O N O F R & L E ! # . " # A N D $ A N O N % ! + , ! - ! RATIO
*rdinarily, la$yers are not obliged to act either as advisers or as advocates of any person $ho may $ish tobecome their client. !hey may decline employment and ref"se to accept representation, if they are not in aposition to carry it o"t effectively and competently. B"t once they agree to handle a case, attorneys are re)"iredby the Canons of +rofessional Responsibility to "nderta#e the tas# $ith zeal, care and "tmost devotion.
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney client;relationship and gives rise to the d"ty of fidelityto a client<s ca"se. And every case accepted by a la$yer deserves f"ll attention, diligence, s#ill and competence.&ence, practicing la$yers may accept only as may cases as they can efficiently handle. *ther$ise, their clients$o"ld be p re"diced.
n the case at bar, records sho$ that after receiving +=,999, A!!4 NARA5A3 failed to render any legal service toR*33*N and despite R*33*N<1 repeated demands, A!!4 NARA5A3 failed to ret"rn the files of the case that hadbeen entr"sted to him and #ept the money R*33**N had li#e$ise entr"sted to him
F"rthermore, after going thro"gh her papers, A!!4 NARA5A3 sho"ld have given R*33*N a candid opinion on themerits and stat"s of the case. Apparently, the civil s"it against R*33*N had been decided against her and hadlong become final e%ec"tory. &o$ever, A!!4 NARA5A3 $ithheld s"ch vital information from R*33*N and evendemanded +=,999 as filing and service fee giving her hope that her case $o"ld be acted "pon.
Atty. Camilo Naraval is fo"nd 6@3!4
of violating R"le 2:.9: and Canons 2, 2 and 2= of the Code of +rofessionalResponsibility and is hereby 1@1+8N8
from the practice of la$ for a period of t$o -7/ years, effective "pon hisreceipt of this ecision. F"rthermore, he is
*R8R8 !* R81!!@!8,
$ithin thirty -9/ days from notice of thisecision, complainant<s eight tho"sand pesos -+=,999/, pl"s interest thereon, at the rate of si% percent perann"m, from *ctober 2=, 7999, "ntil f"lly paid
!" MILLARE v MONTERO 'illare v 'onteroFacts>
!his is a disbarment proceeding against Atty. 'ontero
+acifica 'illare, the mother of complainant, obtained a favorable "dgment from the '!C $hich ordered Co tovacate the premises s"bect of the eectment case.
Co, thro"gh 'ontero as co"nsel, appealed the decision to the R!C. 1he neither filed a s"persedeas bond nor paidthe rentals ad"dged by the '!C. !h"s the appeal $as dismissed.
!he CA also dismissed Co<s appeal from the R!C decision for fail"re to comply $ith B+ Blg. 27 and $ith thenterim R"les and 6"idelines. According to CA, Co sho"ld have filed a petition for revie$ and not an ordinaryappeal.
After the dismissal, the "dgment of the '!C had already become final and e%ec"tory. &o$ever, Co<s co"nselfiled fo"r more defective and dilatory petitions before the R!C, CA, and 1C for the p"rpose of delaying thee%ec"tion of "dgment by '!C.ss"e> W?N 'illare sho"ld be disbarred for violating Canons 27 and 2&eld> 'ontero is s"spended for one year.
Canon 2 re)"ires a la$yer to represent his clients $ithin the bo"nds of the la$. &e m"st employ only fair andhonest means to attain the la$f"l obectives of his client. &e m"st not allo$ his client to dictate the proced"re inhandling the case. n short, a la$yer is not a g"n for hire.
!he appeal from '!C to R!C $as s"fficient to protect Co<s interest and f"lly ventilate her defenses.
'ontero is also g"ilty of for"m shopping, considering the n"mber of actions he filed
!1 DALI%AY v MA&RI$IO Facts>
G
!his is the case against HBatasI 'a"ricio, the !5 host. G
Allegedly, 'a"ricio demanded and received e%orbitant attorney<s fees b"t did not ta#e any action on 5alerinaalisay<s case.
G
nitially, she paid +7:! as acceptance fee. G
n total, she paid 'a"ricio +:!> +=! filing fee -tho"gh the case $as already filed/ the balance might be acombination of the ff>
incash.
o
+,999.99 as appearance fee G
not$ithstanding her payments, respondent never rendered any legal service. 1he terminated their attorney;client relationship and demanded the ret"rn of her money and doc"ments. 'a"icio ref"sed.
G
!he B+ Board of 6overnors $anted to dismiss the case.ss"e> G
W?N the case against 'a"ricio sho"ld be dismissed.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, 6ana3opez, 'endiola, 'orada, Rivas, 1arenas 7C
386A3 8!&C1 7 nd 1em 799:;799 &eld> G
No. &e sho"ld be s"spended for months.When respondent accepted +:,999.99 from complainant, it $as "nderstood that he agreed to ta#e "p thelatter<s case and that an attorney;client relationship bet$een them $as established. From then on, it $as e%pected of himto serve complainant $ith competence and attend to her case $ith fidelity, care and devotion.
G
B"t there is nothing on record that 'a"ricio entered his appearance as co"nsel of record.&e did not even follo$;"p the case $hich remained pending "p to the time she terminated his services.Regarding the +=!> -allegedly as doc#et fees for other cases/> H
t2e3e 4as no ev5dence no3 an6 7ead5n8ssu95tted to s2o4 t2at 3es7ondent ;5ed an6 case cons5de35n8 t2at t2e ;55n8 ;ee 2ad to 9e 7a5ds5utaneous6 45t2 t2e ;55n8 o; a case.
I G
$hen a la$yer ta#es a client<s ca"se, he covenants that he $ill e%ercise d"e diligence in protecting his rights.
G
J"st li#e any other professional, a la$yer is entitled to collect fees for his services. &o$ever, he sho"ld chargeonly a reasonable amo"nt of fees.
!"1 ED<&I)AL v FERRER
FAC!1>8d)"ibal charged Atty Ferrer $ith professional miscond"ct and neglect of d"ty.8d)"ibal engaged the services of Ferrer to assist his mother @rs"la in cases she filed against his sister elia involving acertain property. n one of the cases, the trial "dge rendered a decision adverse to his mother. Atty
Ferrer then advisedcomplainant to appeal to the CA and that the cost involved is +,999. When complainant 8d)"ibal informed respondentAtty Ferrer that he does not have eno"gh money, Atty ferrer
said +7,999 is s"fficient.8d)"ibal follo$ed "p the appealed case. &e then learned that the appeal $as dismissed for fail"re to file the re)"iredappelantEs brief.Respondent Atty Ferrer denied that he filed an appeal. &e claimed that he never agreed to handle the appeal.11@8>W?n Atty Ferrer is g"ilty of professional miscond"ct...&83> 481. Records sho$ that respondnet $as the co"nsel of record for 8d)"ibal. !he resol"tion of the CA clearly states that theKnotice sent to co"nsel for defendants;appelants
re)"iring him to file appelants brief $ihtin : days from receipt thereof,$as received by him...K. &o$ever, respondent failed to file the appellantsE brief despite receipt of s"ch notice. 1ec7 r"le of the R"les of Civ+ro provides that the co"nsel of the parties in the co"rt of origin shall be considered their co"nsel inthe
CA.f it $ere tr"e that Atty Ferrer did not agree to represent 8d)"ibals, $hy did he not file $ith the CA a motion to $ithdra$ astheir co"nsel0 !he practice of la$ does not re)"ire e%traordinary diligence. All that
is re)"ired is ordinary diligencee%pected of a bon"s pater familias.1"spended for mos. FERNANDO MARTIN *ENA
vs.
ATTY. LOLITO /. A*ARI$IOA.$. No. 1= June 1#, 1""Facts: G
At ty. 3o li to 6. Apar ic io ap pe are d as le ga l co "n se l f o r 6 r a c e C . & " f a n a i n a n i l l e g a l dis miss al c ase bef ore the Nati ona l 3a bor Rela tion s Com miss ion -N3RC/ against complainant Fernando 'artin +ena.&"fana is praying for claim for separation pay, b"t+ena
reected the claim as baseless. G
!hereafter, Aparicio sent +ena a letter
reiteratinghis c lien tEs cla im f or sepa rati on pay. ! hro" gh his letter, he threatened complainant that sho"ld +enafail to pay the amo"nts they propose as
settlement,he $o" ld fi le an d cla im big ge r am o" nts in cl "d ing moral damages, as $ell as m"ltiple charges s"ch
ast a % e v a s i o n , f a l s i f i c a t i o n o f d o c " m e n t s , a n d c a n ce ll a ti o n o f b "s in es s l ic en se to op er at e d" e to violations of la$s.
Issue: G
W*N Aparicio violated Canon 2 -and 2.92/ of theC+R, enoining every la$yer to represent h is client $ithzeal $ithin the bo"nds of the la$0
YE% NB> Rue !=."!. A la$yer shall employ
only f a i r a n d h o n e s t m e a n s t o a t t a i n t h e l a $ f " l o b e ct iv e s o f h is client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to
p re sen t " n f o " n d e d c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s t o o b t a i n a n improper advantage in any case or proceeding.K
G
W * N i t i s p r o p e r t o d i s b a r A p a r i c i o 0 NO,3e735and on6Hed:
G
@ n d e r C a n o n 2 , a l a $ y e r s h o " l d n o t f i l e o r threaten to file any "nfo"nded or baseless criminalcase or cases against the adversaries of his
clientd e s i g n e d t o s e c " r e l e v e r a g e t o c o m p e l t h e a d v e r s a r i e s t o y i e l d o r $i th d ra $ th e ir o$ n ca se sagainst the la$yerEs client.
G
n the case at bar, the threats are not
only" n e t h i c a l f o r v i o l a t i n g C a n o n 2 , b " t t h e y a l s o amo"nt to 9ac>a5
.
Blac#mail is Kthe e%tortion of mo ne y fr om a pe rs on by th re at s of ac c" sa ti on
o r e % p o s " r e o r o p p o s i t i o n i n t h e p " b l i c p r i n t s , L ob ta in in g o f va l" e fro m a p erso n as a co ndi tio n of refraining from ma#ing an acc"sation against him, or dis clo sin g som e sec ret
calc"lated to operate to his pre"dice.K
!he letter in this case contains more than "st a simple demand to pay. t even contains a threat to file retaliatory charges against complainant$hich hav e not hin g to do $ith his cli en tEs claim for sep ara tion pay. nde ed, lett ers of t his nat" re are definitely proscribed by the
Code of +rofessionalResponsibility. G
l a $ a s h e s o gallantly claims. Far from it, the letter even containsan implied promise to ?>ee7 s5ent?
abo"t the saidviolations if payment of the claim is made on thedate indicated. G
DE$I%ION:
While the $riting of the
letter $ e n t b e y o n d e t h i c a l s t a n d a r d s , $ e h o l d t h a t disbarment is too severe a penalty to be imposed onrespondent, considering that he $rote the same
o"to f h i s o v e r z e a l o " s n e s s t o p r o t e c t h i s c l i e n t E s interests. Accordingly, the more appropriate penaltyis
