The Gazette 1978

MARCH1978

GAZETTE

the solicitor cannot use advertising to attract a greater volume of business that would provide economics of scale, or justify the introduction of innovatory methods or equipment. • . . The restrictions prevent solicitors from competing for business with banks and other businesses and professions who arc not restricted in their advertising in taxation and other allied fields. Developments since the decisions: U.S. The Supreme Court's decision was handed down on June 27th, 1977. It sparked off an instant flood of advertising — The Los Angeles Times of July 3rd had a full page of advertisements (see insert II). These advertisements fell into four main categories — (i) those which were in the style of professional cards; (ii) those which listed specific areas of law in which the firm worked; (iii) those which quoted fees for various types of cases; and (iv) magazine style display ads. Many lawyers have since lost their initial enthusiasm for advertising feeling that the results have been disappointing. One major advertiser Richard Grand (see insert III) expressed disappointment at the results of his il@adfiiis.lli 3 IiickY, t i l l fee a gj 7 w a s t e m fii

(4) The undesirable economic effect of advertising on the ground that advertising may reduce the cost of legal services by promoting competition and, rather than create a barrier against young lawyers, advertising may work in their favour. (5) The adverse effect of advertising on the quality of service on the ground that the lawyer who is inclined to cut quality will do so regardless of the rule of advertising. (6) The difficulties of enforcement on the ground that for every lawyer who over-reaches on advertising there will be thousands who will be candid and honest and straightforward. The U.K. Monopoly Commission rejected the Law Society's arguments against advertising as follows: (1) That advertising would destroy the relationship of trust existing between Solicitor and client — on the ground that solicitors are unlikely to succumb to the tamptation to depart from the high standards of the profession more easily or more frequently merely by reason of the supposed contamination of advertising. A further argument that solicitors would appear to their clients to be less worthy of trust if they advertised was rejected, subject to the Commissions acceptance of the need to establish certain restrictions on nature of-the advertising (e.g. No claims of superiority, no inaccuracies or misleading statements, not to be of such a character as would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute). (2) That a solicitor owing a duty not only to the client but the society and to the Court of which he is an Officer should not behave as if he were a purely commercial undertaking, was rejected for the same reasons as the first argument was rejected. The Arguments In favour of Advertising in the U.S. and the U.K. U.S. In Bates and O'Steen the Plaintiffs argued that their advertising provided a type of economic information most useful for Consumer decision-making information "as to who is producing and selling what produpt . . . and at what price". The public need for such information is immense: tens of millions of Americans do not know how to find a lawyer and are afraid they cannot afford one. The rule against advertising discriminates against this group which lacks the knowledge of lawyers easily available to commercial clients. The Plaintiffs' practice was said to be geared to provide legal services to the large group above the poverty line but below the level of affluence which the regular users of the legal profession enjoy. They expected a low profit on their legal work and they had to depend on somewhat standardised services and volume. U.K. The restrictions on advertising deprive users and potential users of solicitors services and also potential entrants to the profession of helpful information that might be available to them. Individual advertising rather than collective advertising is likely to be more effective in disseminating information about the kinds of work undertaken by particular solicitors or particular firms and about special services or facilities available. The restrictions reduce the stimulus to efficiency, to cost saving, to innovations, to the setting up of new practices and to competition among the solicitors because

Iriuw if yuu rrluilv vow'11 iwvrf b. inturnl in .n uultv •Nibil. Kxidrnt l)r bun twill, an . ctm.trui lion iub Or 4>vtblnJ bv i •sol And foriutwl.lv nwi impl. •rr lurkt

I'rr.nital imurv 1 wtiW h iiitt'i*! nq . 1 iwitirq.m \ hi.it Th.l itwjn. il n. uin .it£l fill.il u.tn,i\ii|Wimt< 11 u. ilnit l Ihrrr 1. mi It» It v01 nml h. 1 .1! \«kk* IVikl.uifl tiiin \hllu«hi« |in tin hhrrl

But what if you're not m lucky? , llth.r.i<.it«iiilHM .mill ilt.r.1. wrioii. tniurv

LawOffices of Richard Grand Pe r sonal i n j u r y / s i n co 1959 Tr.ns.mrrna Huildin* Iuison. An/on. laltrr hours J-?-7t?l|

k&j . V m - mi M J s

y'^wifi?- 4 *

< *»»•- r«Í ii svrirs nf nils IWin iti in thi- Ttit.Min Citurn Ity Ihi: l.uiv (I'ftt t-s i,l lllthiiiil (i'riinil

r

7

Í V r ^ f o ^ ii.tirl-i

36