Philippine Lawbytes 236: IBP Dipolog (Part 2): The Impact of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) on Cyberlaw Practice and Ethics in the Philippines, by Dr. Atty. Noel G. Ramiscal

My second MCLE lecture for the IBP Dipolog was “Cyber Law Practice Hazards in the Regime of the 2023 Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA)” last June 21, 2023. This was the first lecture I did this year that addressed the effects of A.I. on the legal profession which directly referred to the 2023 CPRA, which is the revised version of the 1988 Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers. For 2022 and the first quarter of this year, I have discussed Cyberlaw Practice and Ethics in conjunction with the 2022 draft of the CPRA.   

Dr. Atty. Noel G. Ramiscal prior to his June 21, 2023 MCLE Lecture on Cyberlaw Practice Ethics Hazards in the 2023 CPRA

As I have discussed extensively last year and this year, we are now in the age of the 4^th Industrial Revolution, in which A.I., together with Augmented Reality, Internet of Things (IoT), Cloud Computing, Additive Manufacturing, Big Data Analytics, Nanotechnology, Cryptography and Quantum Computing, are the driving forces that will alter our lives, and the way we make our living, way beyond significantly.

How are these technological developments which have various impacts on the personal and professional lives of lawyers, reflected in the 2023 CPRA? Well, apparently, they are not. As I told the IBP Dipolog MCLE participants, the word “technology” was not even mentioned in the 2022 Draft of the CPRA which I critiqued in my 2022 UPIAJ Commissioned Report entitled “A.I., Technology, Gender and Morality in the Philippine Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for Lawyers”. The 2023 CPRA, like the 2022 Draft, focused merely on social media and the ethical obligations that lawyers have toward their usage of it. But social media is not the be all and end all of technology for cyberlaw practitioners. My 2022 UPIAJ Commissioned Report delved on different types of technological innovations and tools that have greatly influenced and changed legal practice all over the world. The gist of some of my recommendations and suggestions in my Commissioned Report can be found here:

Philippine Lawbytes 224: The Cyber Ethics of Technological Competence and the 1988 Philippine Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers

https://noelthecyberlawyer.wordpress.com/2023/02/28/philippine-lawbytes-224-the-ethics-of-technological-competence-and-the-1988-philippine-code-of-professional-responsibility-for-lawyers-by-dr-atty-noel-g-ramiscal/

In my Dipolog lecture, I delineated the possible legal and ethical frameworks of dealing with A.I. used in the legal industry as “legaltech” and the possible bases for liability, of law firms or lawyers acting as operators of these tools, in cases they go rogue or is implicated in uses that harm humans. In the possible scenarios I gave, I showed the European Parliament and other sources where I culled, or which inspired my discussion.     

Dr. Atty. Noel G. Ramiscal during his June 21, 2023 MCLE Lecture on Cyberlaw Ethics Hazards in the 2023 CPRA

One vital matter in any legaltech and ethical discussion of the future of lawyering is the anthropocentric conception of legal practice, which can be reduced to that hapless phrase “as that which lawyers do” [Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991, 201 SCRA 210 (1991)], that is still prevalent in the Philippine legal and judicial professions. Since 2015, I have discussed in my cyberlaw ethics lectures the case of Lola v. Skadden [620 F. App’x 37, 45 (2d Cir. 2015)], where the court ruled that a lawyer who used an A.I. e-discovery tool to do his function of reviewing documents, and used no independent legal judgment because such documents were already pre-marked by the A.I. tool, did not perform any “legal practice”.

With this type of judicial mindset, many of the tasks performed by junior associates in Philippine law firms that do not require any exercise of independent legal judgment on their part (e.g. inputting client data into pro forma affidavits, motions or pleadings, checking for grammatical and typographical errors in legal documents, checking case citations, using e-discovery tools like the one used in Lola, for legal process outsourcers in the Philippines, etc.) do not constitute legal practice. In fact, A.I. tools can do these tasks better, as I showed in several examples where experienced document review attorneys were pitted against A.I. tools which devastatingly outperformed them in all levels. Human lawyers are NOT the gold standard for tasks like these, A.I. tools are. And what is also most disturbing is that A.I. tools can perform their tasks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, without taking rest or leaves, without getting sick, without needing promotions, and without asking for any job benefits!

Dr. Atty. Noel G. Ramiscal at the Dapitan Heritage house of Aniano Adasa with paintings of Jose Rizal, June 21, 2023

A.I. is also the main reason why law firms and lawyers in different jurisdictions have joined forces with non-lawyers and non-legal entities (like business service firms and I.T. solutions/software firms) to form Alternative Business Structures (ABS) or Alternative Legal Service Providers (ALSPs) or accept investments in their firms from non-lawyer investors.

In this type of set-up, non-lawyers can be partners of lawyers, to the extent that non-lawyers are even legally allowed to manage these firms! This arrangement has been successful because it answers several pressing needs of lawyers and law firms. It provides financial capital that is much needed for the expansion of their legal practice. It also enables law practitioners to have access to technological and other types of resources to offer value added services to their clients, which can make them attract more clients.

Dr. Atty. Noel G. Ramiscal at the Dapitan Heritage house of Aniano Adasa, June 21, 2023

Australia was the first to do this in the early 2000s. U.K. and certain European countries followed. For the longest time, the U.S.A. held out due to the American Bar Association’s (ABA) view that non-lawyers are not allowed to partner with law firms and lawyers, to do “legal” tasks, and to share in legal fees to safeguard the independence of lawyers and protect the legal profession. But during the pandemic in 2020, the Utah Supreme Court allowed the first NON-LAWYER OWNED LAW FIRM, called LAW ON CALL to be established to provide legal services to Utah residents. Arizona then followed suit, while other States like California, Indiana, and even the ABA are considering allowing this type of arrangements.

In the Philippines, we are still saddled with the same restrictions followed by the ABA. The 2023 CPRA canonized the non-sharing of legal fees with non-lawyers in Canon III, Section 43.

Dr. Atty. Noel G. Ramiscal at the Dr. Jose Rizal landing installation marker, Dapitan, June 21, 2023

Judging from the fact that only social media was the one touched on by the current CPRA, it is unfortunate that there appeared to be no discussion, or even awareness, from those who drafted it, of the many complex technological developments that have changed the legal profession around the world.

But maybe this is changing. I consider it providential that I was able to meet during the IBP Dipolog MCLE dinner, one of the members of the Subcommittee that drafted the CPRA rules in 2022, Atty. Fina Tantuico, who was also a lecturer in the MCLE seminar. We had a lengthy discussion about some of these developments and I acquired the consent of the UPIAJ Director, Atty. Emerson Bañez, to share with her, and her Subcommittee co-members my 2022 Commissioned Report.

Dr. Atty. Noel G. Ramiscal with IBP Dipolog Pres. Atty. Augustus Alegarbes and Vice Pres. Atty. Fevie Gador, June 21, 2023

Once again, I am grateful to all the IBP Dipolog officers, Atty. Alegarbes, Atty. Gador, and the rest for their generous reception, to the MCLE Committee members headed by Atty. Lim, and all the IBP staff who made sure we were comfortable. To all the fabulous IBP Dipolog lawyers, who are seekers of Truth and Justice, may your tribe increase!

LAWBYTES 110: THE NEED FOR A PHILIPPINE DIGITAL ASSET INHERITANCE LAW, THE RIGHT OF TRANSMISSBILITY UNDER THE DATA PRIVACY LAW, AND THE VALUATION OF DIGITAL ASSETS

My work and professional advocacies on digital privacy and security started way back in 2001, when I was appointed as a consultant for the Information Technology E-Commerce Council on its cybercrime bill initiative, up to the time I had to leave the country to take my Ph.D in Law degree at the University of Queensland in Australia in 2003. When I came back, in 2008, the former Commission on Information Communication Technology (CICT) through its Deputy Commissioner Atty. Perez tasked me to critique the consolidated cybercrime bills that already went through the vetting process of the European Commission, which I did, and to come up with my own cybercrime bill, which was never considered. I was also a consultant of the CICT on its data privacy bill which had its own issues, and placed in the backburner for quite some time. I wrote a white paper for that, raising issues that to this very day are quite relevant.

In this age of digital confessionals and e-self-immolations in the pursuit of online fame and notoriety, there is one very basic thing that I have wondered about since 2008, which no Philippine legislator, academic or even a lecturer in the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) had raised, legislated, blogged or even lectured, until now. This matter involves the question of a person’s digital legacy.

Eight years after my CICT stint, I started lecturing and advocating for the necessity of a Philippine law that allows the survivors or heirs of a decedent to have access to the digital remnants of their loved one. My first MCLE lecture to incorporate this was for the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Chapter in Ilocos Sur, Vigan last January 15, 2016 at the historic Girl Scouts Building.

Dr. Atty. Ramiscal in his MCLE lecture for the IBP Ilocos Sur Chapter on E-Discovery of Social Media where he first discussed at length his advocacy on the establishment of a Digital Asset Inheritance Law

This was the time, when one of idols, David Bowie passed on, and I felt that Vigan is a very appropriate place to start this advocacy because it is an international heritage site, where the past and present co-exist and collide in surprising and beautiful ways. I have continued to do so in every opportunity that I could get in my lecture tours all over the country, including in my different lectures for the MERALCO, Siguion Reyna Montecillo Ongsiako law firm, the Sycip Salazar Gatmaitan Hernandez law firm and the Santiago and Santiago law firm. The most recent lectures where I raised this matter were for the CDAS ASEA 10, in Cagayan De Oro last July 13, 2016 and the University of the Philippines Institute of Administration of Justice last July 15, 2016.

Dr. Atty. Noel G. Ramiscal at the world famous Vigan plaza

The electronic remains of a decedent may be contained in emails, social media, websites and other repositories that are owned or operated by third parties. Many cases have arisen in several jurisdictions where the survivors of the owners of email accounts or social media profiles who have passed on, are deprived of their access to the digital creations of their loved ones because of the policies and terms and conditions of usage of the third parties that own these repositories. Typically, owners of email services like Yahoo! and Gmail restrict the use of any email account to the holder of such account and prohibit the sharing of passwords or e-keys to these accounts, thus not allowing the heirs of these account holders to access their loved ones’ accounts for important information. The same policy holds true for social media providers like FaceBook, which is the most popular social media platform utilized in the Philippines. FaceBook, after being informed of the passing of an account holder would memorialize the holder’s account, effectively “freezing” the account and preventing its activation, including any further comments.

Dr. Atty. Noel G. Ramiscal at the UP IAJ for his MCLE Lecture on Social Media that touched on the need for Digital Asset Inheritance Law

One of the most well known cases that typified the difficulties of heirs having access to their loved one’s electronic legacy is that of James Ellsworth. He is the father of Justin Ellsworth who died in Falujah, Iraq, while saving eleven marines. Justin engaged in email chats with his father and wished to publish a scrapbook of his war experiences when he returns to the U.S. after his tour, using their email correspondence as the main storyline or basis. Unfortunately, this did not come to pass. In dealing with his son’s death and his personal grief, James decided to honor his son’s wish, but he could not access his son’s Yahoo! email account for the pertinent emails that would be used in the scrapbook, because Yahoo! will not give him his son’s password or access to the account. The case went to probate court, and after a protracted period of waiting, the probate court decided that Yahoo! must furnish James copies of his son’s email messages but denied James access to his son’s email account on the ground that the account would pass on to Yahoo! since it is stored on its server. This case also did not change Yahoo!’s policy. Some are not as fortunate as James. Parents of people who killed themselves or were murdered, and left messages in FaceBook prior to their passing, were denied access to their children’s accounts’ content altogether, thereby leaving them with questions about their children’s behavior, motivation and pertinent history which their private postings could possibly answer.

Some lawyers who enjoyed Dr. Ramiscal’s lecture on Social Media for Up IAJ last July 15, 2016

Some of the other lawyers who enjoyed Dr. Ramiscal’s lecture on Social Media for Up IAJ last July 15, 2016

It is because of cases like these that I have decided to advocate for a Digital Asset Inheritance Law. In my lectures I raise several points that legislators must consider.

The most crucial is the right granted under the Data Privacy Law (R.A. 10173) to a “data subject” which is the right of data transmissibility:

SEC. 17. Transmissibility of Rights of the Data Subject. – The lawful heirs and assigns of the data subject may invoke the rights of the data subject for, which he or she is an heir or assignee at any time after the death of the data subject or when the data subject is incapacitated or incapable of exercising the rights as enumerated in the immediately preceding section.

Under the law, this right of transmissibility would include the right to access the personal information and other data generated by the data subject that had been subjected to “data processing” which had been defined to “include but not limited to, the collection, recording, organization, storage, updating or modification, retrieval, consultation, use, consolidation, blocking, erasure or destruction of data” by any personal information controller (PIC). The definition of PIC under this law is broad enough to include email account systems operators and social media providers.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 10173 have not yet been promulgated by the National Privacy Commission (NPC), as they are currently undergoing a series of public hearings. In fact, the I.R.R. do not even touch on this in any specific manner. So there is no guidance as to how this law may affect the rights of the survivors on accessing the digital remnants of their loved ones.

Dr. Atty. Ramiscal on his MCLE Lecture on Data Privacy Law for the MERALCO lawyers

One particular concern that I note here, and in all my lectures on this matter, which is why I have been advocating for a specific law on digital asset inheritance, is that a mere I.R.R. from the NPC may not suffice due to the legal question concerning not only NPC’s status, but the actual effective implementability of R.A. 10173.

R.A. 10173 was passed last August 15, 2012. But the past administration only operationalized the NPC last March 8, 2016! The law mandated the following:

SEC. 39. Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). – Within ninety (90) days from the effectivity of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate the rules and regulations to effectively implement the provisions of this Act,

which should have been done way back in 2012. This not a mere technical ground but one intertwined with substantive legal merit. The Supreme Court had decided on a slew of cases that the operative act of the legal implementability of any law is the deposit of its I.R.R. with the UP Office of the National Administrative Register, which had not yet been done in this instance after almost four years from the law’s passage.

I have three specific suggestions for what this type of law should contain.

First, a specific law on digital asset inheritance must specify or include the possible electronic repositories of the digital legacy of a decedent. It must apply to all forms of electronic storage providers, like email providers, microblogging services, social media providers and cloud providers. Provision must be made for the allowance of accounts created by deceased minors, who during their lifetimes, did not abuse their accounts, and created content (even through their correspondence), which their heirs or survivors deem worthy as legacies.

This law is crucial because it would, or should trump the terms of use and conditions that are currently provided by social media and email account providers like FaceBook, Gmail and Yahoo! to deny access to the heirs of the accounts of their deceased loved ones, because these policies prohibit the account holders from sharing their account passwords or from sharing their accounts with any third party, including their loved ones.

Second, another important and significant issue that is not currently being discussed in the Philippines is the intellectual property rights connected with the digital legacy left by a decedent. For instance, an examination of the relevant Facebook policy would reveal that when a user signs up for FaceBook, s/he grants FaceBook a non-exclusive intellectual property license to use and even transfer the license to third parties that FaceBook deals with, concerning the posts, photographs, videos, or written materials that the user puts in his/her FaceBook account. Even if the user terminates the account, these third parties that FaceBook transferred it license to can continue using the digital data. A proper Digital Inheritance Law must address this seemingly iniquitous situation.

Third, this law should also consider or lay down the proper framework for the valuation of digital assets.

The Bureau of Internal Revenue, and possibly the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the Department of Communication Information Technology (DCIT), the NPC, the National Telecommunication Commission, other relevant agencies and the private sector must come up with an acceptable formula and accounting method for determining the monetary value of all forms of digital assets.

The framework must take into account the reality that some of these assets would defy the normal or usual means of valuation and accounting. An example would be Bitcoins, which is an example of a cryptocurrency that is not regulated by any country or any central banking authority. Since they are virtual money that pass from online wallets or are traded in online exchanges that are not regulated by the BSP, and their values fluctuate every day, it is difficult, if not impossible, for now, to access and determine their value for Gross Estate Tax purposes. These constitute the reasons why tech savvy spouses avail of Bitcoins to hide part of their assets from the prying eyes of their less than favored spouses and why drug dealers and purveyors of digital crimes use them as their currency of choice.

Dr. Atty. Noel G. Ramiscal’s picture of Juan Luna’s Girl Playing with Mandolin

The very clean well preserved streets of Vigan

To all the readers of this blog article, I request that you join me in my advocacy for such a law by circulating or disseminating this article to your favorite legislators, and to as many people and entities as you can to create the needed groundswell and support for this type of legislation. You can also leave a comment on this blog article and create a discussion for this law.

I would like to thank the excellent gorgeous IBP Vigan lawyers (who are too many to mention) who were so generous in regaling us with their stories and insights into Vigan’s past and treating us to the rich food, particularly the bagnet, that I could still savor even after so many months have passed! Vigan is one of those magical places that truly merit a world class reputation and I felt so fortunate to have experienced first-hand the true hospitality and genuine warmth of not only the lawyers but the locals, as well.

Dr. Atty. Noel G. Ramiscal with some of the marvelous and gracious IBP Vigan lawyers/officers

Extra especial thanks to the UP Institute of Administration of Justice, their brilliant Director, Prof. Patricia Salvador Daway, their former, and truly fabulous Director, Prof. Rowena Daroy Morales, the insightful Atty. Armand Arevalo, the generous Mesdames Mabel Perez, Zen Santos and Evelyn Cuasto and the amiable IAJ staff, who had supported my cyber law advocacies all these years!

To the lawyers in the law firms that I was fortunate to lecture at, the IBP National, Ms. Arguson, and the Arellano Law Foundation, who all trusted me to be one of their lecturers, and to every lawyer who had attended my lectures in the past, Deo Gratias!!! I trust that these bits of insights can serve as part of the arsenal for those of you who are advocating for the proper treatment of the digital legacy of their loved ones. God Bless Us! Insha Allah!

LAWBYTE 102: THE ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF JUDGES’ CYBER FRIENDSHIPS WITH LAWYERS: COPYRIGHT BY DR. ATTY. NOEL G. RAMISCAL

Dr. Atty. Noel G. Ramiscal gave a lecture on “Judicial Ethics in Cyberspace” to what is probably one of the liveliest groups of lawyers/participants in a Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminar last October 22, 2015 at the UP Law Center, Bocobo Hall. It was a particularly remarkable occasion for Dr. Ramiscal because it was attended by several lawyers with whom he had pleasant experiences in the past like Atty. Kim Baltao, and also by one of the staunchest advocates for clean electronic elections, Congressman Bono Adaza.

Dr. Atty. Noel G. Ramiscal with legal luminary Atty. Bono Adaza, Oct. 22, 2015

It was also timely because the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the 2012 Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. 10175) was deposited about a month ago with the UP Office of the National Administrative Register, apparently signifying the effectivity of this law (that Dr. Ramiscal has questioned time and time again) which established the cybercrime courts in the Philippines.

While none of the lawyers who attended the lectures are judges, most, if not all of them have had to, or continuously deal with judges in their professional capacity, either as prosecutors, private defense counsels, or court attorneys. Dr. Ramiscal, in his lecture apprised the lawyers of several ethical developments concerning judicial deportment in different countries. He gave examples of judges being fired or being forced to resign because of their unethical and even illegal conduct or actuations against lawyers and parties in their cases, which have been captured by electronic devices, or which they have committed using these e-devices or computing systems they have access to in their professional or personal capacity. The 2014 admonition of the Philippine Supreme Court of Judge Maria Cecilia I. Austria (A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200, April 2, 2014) due to her improper posting in the now defunct “Friendster” site of a seductive/suggestive photo of herself with the apparent purpose of finding a compatible partner pales in comparison to some of the downrightly distasteful and even bizarre online actions of several judges in other jurisdictions. For example, Dr. Ramiscal discussed the case of Seamus McCaffery, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice, who sent or received more than 200 emails containing pornography or sexually explicit content between late 2008 and May 2012 to his fellow Justices, lawyers and judicial staff. He attempted to dismiss his behaviour by releasing an official statement that his “coarse language and crude jokes” were a normal part of his time serving as a police officer and as a Marine. “That’s not an excuse, just a fact”. He decided to step down last year to prevent an ethics investigation and to keep his pension.

Dr. Ramiscal informed the lawyers of several developments that pertain to online friendships between judges and lawyers, which may be relevant to those who have judges as “friends” in their social media accounts.

Some of the lawyers that attended Dr. Ramiscal’s Oct. 22, 2015 MCLE lecture

In 2012 the International Bar Association released the results of a study it conducted of 47 jurisdictions, excluding the Philippines, relative to the “The Impact of Online Social Networking on the Legal Profession and Practice”. Due to this study, the IBA released the “International Principles on Social Media Conduct for the Legal Profession” in 2014. The 2012 study’s value cannot be overemphasized. It was the first multi-jurisdictional study that among others, took into consideration the online friendships between lawyers and judges. Almost 70% of the respondents who were asked whether they consider it acceptable for lawyers and judges to have each other as contacts on online social networking sites, said it was proper. Of these, almost half felt that it is still acceptable to be online friends with judges before whom they appear in court proceedings.

Other lawyers that attended Dr. Ramiscal’s Oct. 22, 2015 MCLE lecture

The Republic of Malta has actually prohibited judges from joining any online social networking sites, let alone be online friends with lawyers. Different states in the U.S. have different positions on this matter. Florida and Oklahoma prohibit judges from befriending lawyers who appear before them. New York and Kentucky allow such friendships with certain reservations or qualifications. Some legal ethicists opine that the nature of the online friendship must first be examined before ruling on any judicial impropriety.

There is currently no rule on cyberfriendships between lawyers and judges in the Philippines. But based on the Philippine Supreme Court decision on Judge Austria, it is clear that the court allows judges to participate in social media sites. What it does not allow are instances where the judges’ use of these sites would compromise the integrity and independence of the judiciary through the online antics of judges.

Like his lecture on Ethics for cyberlawyers, Dr. Ramiscal is the first and only MCLE lecturer that has one whole lecture dedicated solely to issues concerning the competence and utilization of internet tools by judges. He would like to thank the UP Institute of Administration of Justice for giving him this grand opportunity to share his research on these matters and for the gracious lawyers who had given their animated and generous support as well! Deo Gratias!

Addressing and Preventing the Quagmires of Virtual Law Practice by Law Firms: Dr. Ramiscal at the Villaraza & Angangco Law Office (Copyright by Dr. Atty. Noel G. Ramiscal)

One of the firms in the Philippines that certainly practice “Big Law” in a grand manner is the Villaraza and Angangco law firm with their own building at Global Fort City in Taguig. When Dr. Atty. Noel G. Ramiscal was invited to give a Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) lecture for the lawyers of this firm through the UP Institute of Administration of Justice last June 27, 2015, he lost no time in revamping his cyberethics presentation to cover the concerns of virtual practice by law firms. This is the second time he gave a lecture for this firm, the first being in 2013, and as always, it was a pleasant experience. The Rainmaker’s Lounge

DR. ATTY. NOEL G. RAMISCAL MCLEJUNE272015 Lecture for the Villaraza & Angangco Law Firm

where the lecture series were held was certainly tasteful and elegant. He felt at home with all the native jewelry pieces that were on display and the grand piano with the plush leather seat that he occasionally sat on during his lecture. A bronzed sculpted figure of Justice witnessed the proceedings.

Dr. Ramiscal focused his lecture on the legal and possible ethical quagmires law firms may face in the possibility of expanding their practice online. He gave examples of models of multi-jurisdictional virtual law firms (MJVLFs), some of which do not maintain any physical site or office and how they have managed to compete with the so-called “Big Law” firms. These MJVLFs are transforming the scape of legal practice with their innovative solutions to lowering the costs of access to law, without sacrificing the quality of service. Some of these firms do not hire associates, or as one put it “inexperienced lawyers” to handle client matters. These firms turn to technology solutions to answer the general needs of their clients, particularly in the creation, revision and storage of legal documents for different types of cases (See Vlotech, Directlaw, Rapidoc). Some of these firms have devoted client extranets with distinct features custom made for the needs of their clients, and some outsource messaging services (Ruby Secretary). Several firms use the portals of virtual worlds to render service or to attract clients. One such virtual world is “Second Life” where some lawyers and law firms from all over the physical world have converged to create and explore ways of practising law beyond what was thought possible several years ago.

DR. ATTY. NOEL G. RAMISCAL MCLEJUNE172015 Lecture with other Villaraza & Angangco lawyers

Another major development that has arisen to answer the need for accountability in the legal industry for professional fees billed by law firms is the development of several software solutions (e.g. Rocket Matter and ViewaBill) that make the process of billing transparent to clients. Some of these are also used by in-house counsel to determine the reasonability of fees charged by outside counsel or consultant (e.g. SkyAnalytics).

All MJVLFs rely on some form of service offered by cloud computing providers, be it in the form of Infrastructure as a Service, or Platform as a Service, or Software as a Service. While cloud computing brings a lot of benefits, the possible breach of confidentiality in the privileged communications between lawyers and their clients in the documents stored in the cloud is a primary issue that no Philippine lawyer can afford to ignore. Dr. Ramiscal delineated the issues that lawyers should investigate before they sign any service license agreement with any cloud computing provider, for their benefit and the benefit of their clients.

DR. ATTY. NOEL G. RAMISCAL MCLEJUNE272015 Lecture with the Villaraza & Angangco lawyers

The ease by which services can be accessed by clients from all over world via legal websites have made it also easier to facilitate and commit unauthorized practice of law (UPL). With the current move of standardizing credentials of professionals across different parts of the world, thereby making it possible to practice in different countries, the impact of this to the legal profession has not truly been studied in any comprehensive manner by any Philippine entity. While the still ineffective Cybercrime Prevention Act makes it seemingly simple to file cases against foreign lawyers whose acts of UPL amount to crimes in (the yet to be established) Philippine cybercrime courts, it is by no means settled if any judgment or order could be enforced against these lawyers in different jurisdictions. The difficulty becomes exacerbated with the rise of MJVLFs and the various ethical rules in countries that are affected by the acts of these errant lawyers.

These, and many other issues of significance to MJVLFs were discussed by Dr. Ramiscal to an appreciative and classy bunch of lawyers. Many thanks to the gracious V & A partners with whom Dr. Ramiscal had lunch with: Attys. Augusto San Pedro, Franchette Acosta, Juanito Sañosa, Thea Daep and Sylvette Tankiang, and the vivacious associates.