Canon 16- Lemoine vs Balon

BASIC 1 TITLE:

LEGAL ETHICS | BANGUIS|BERNAL|CARPIO|ESTEP BANGUIS|BERNAL|CARPIO|ESTEPA|MERCADO A|MERCADO

Daniel LEMOINE vs. ATTY. Amadeo E. BALON (A.C. No. 5829. October 28 2!!" ) DOCT#INE:

•

!alon later claimed that he ga#e $33,111 to Garcia on the representation of Lemoine, howe#er, he ga#e no e#idence to such turno#er 

 In IBP

T$ere i% a re&re%entation o' con'lictin( intere%t% i' t$e acce&tance o' t$e ne) retainer )ill re*+ire t$e attorne, to do an,t$in( )$ic$ )ill in-+rio+%l, a''ect $i% 'ir%t client in an, matter in )$ic$ $e re&re%ent% $im and al%o )$et$er $e )ill be called +&on in $i% ne) relation to +%e a(ain%t $i% 'ir%t cli ent an, no)led(e ac*+ired t$ro+($ t$eir connection. connection.

8he In#estigating /ommissioner found respondent (+ilt, o' mi%cond+ct and recommended immediatel turn o#er to complainan complainantt the sum of  t$at $e be di%barred and directed to immediatel 9:%,111.11 representing the amount of the %$%,111.11 insurance claim less respondents  professional fees of %1,111.11, %1,111.11, as proposed ' complainant. complainant.

/ACT0:

IB1 BO: 3it$ modi'ication, and considering respondents dishonest which amounted to gra#e misconduct misconduct and grossl grossl unethical unethical 'eha#ior which caused caused dishonor, dishonor, not merel to resp respon onde dent nt 'ut 'ut the the no'l no'lee prof profes essi sion on to whic which h he 'elo 'elong ngs, s, 7esp 7espon onde dent nt is here' 0401ENDED from the practice of law for si; (+6+ from the practice of law for 8hree (3) months. 0O O#DE#ED.

BASIC LEGAL ETHICS | BANGUIS|BERNAL|CARPIO|ESTEPA|MERCADO 2