The Gazette 1982

g a z e t t e attribute to advertising all the ills of solicitation, of barratry, champerty, and maintenance. Your author would insist that the difference between advertising and solicitation is as clear and as morally defensible as that between Ohralik and Primus (as glossed by Mr Justice Marshall), but that is simple testimony (of his moral vision) and not proof (of its independent truth). One distinction between Primus and Ohralik not previously treated of is that in the former, but not in the latter, there was a written communication. The reader of a letter, or of an advertisement, can effectively avoid further bombardment; the victim of solicitation frequently cannot. Unlike solicitation, advertising is open to public scrutiny, gives rise to no special difficulties of proof and is readily susceptible of regulation (as witness, even the Law Society of Scotland's Solicitors' (Scotland) Practice Rules, 1977 and 1978). Again, lay persons are more vulnerable to solicitation than to advertising given that lawyers are normally professionals trained, or at least experienced, in the art of persuasion. Advertising simply provides information, leaving an individual free to act on it or otherwise; solicitation involves pressures, not least of all in the apparent need for an instant answer without time to take stock. The justification of extending constitutional protection to lawyer advertising, and that means, in effect, prohibiting states prohibiting lawyers, turns upon the concept of'informed and reliable decision making' (Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 us 350, 364). Above all, the dissemination of information as to the availability, nature and prices of legal services was seen as essential to the consumer of legal services making a rational choice about his life and about the selection of a lawyer. In Scotland, despite its being of the private sector, the provision of legal services is not a field of competition. The doctrines of Adam Smith have never informed the political economy of the provision of legal services. Prices are centrally determined, not of course by government, but by the legal profession's own governing body. So alien are the twin doctrines of price competition and advertising that few lawyers would even entertain offering a discount for prompt payment of fees, out of a justifiable apprehension that such offends the rules of the Law Society. It is rather easy to construct a convincing case against the legal profession relating to monopolies, restrictive practices and even the closed shop. The competition and openness normally associated with the private sector is absent. Further liberalising of the advertising rules together with modest and regulated price competition (and therefore advertising) might provide a much-needed boost for a profession under attack and rather too defensive and unsure of kself for its own good or for the good of those it serves. The legal profession has much to gain and little to lose, both internally, and as against external predators, by adopting a regulated but increasingly aggressive marketing policy.

april 1982

Ruling of Settled Jury Actions

The following Practice Direction has been received from Mr. J. K. Waldron, the High Court registrar

Jury Actions set down for trial in any venue outside Dublin may be ruled on a Monday in Dublin. In the case of infant or fatal settlements, the ruling must be with papers lodged beforehand as a listed ruling. In any other case, the application should be made as an ex-parte application to the Judge dealing with Ex-Parte applications on a Monday morning. In every such case, however, it is essential that with the papers must be lodged a note of the list number of the case and the venue for which it is listed. This is necessary in order to permit of the realistic up-dating of lists awaiting trial at these venues. With regard to infant and fatal cases (to be ruled on a Monday) which have been set down for Dublin a similar requirement arises. Lady Solicitors 9 Golfing Society The 3rd of December last saw a gathering of adventurous ladies beating their way through the purple heather at the Heath Golf Club, Portlaoise. Wrapped in Aran sweaters, shielded by waterproofs and insulated with thermal woolies, some twenty ladies teed off — and thereby marked the inauguration of the Lady Solicitors' Golfing Society. Hours later, the first of the expedition returned to the Clubhouse and, with tails to the fire and "hot toddies" in hand, began to recount the inevitable tales of the putt that wouldn't drop. The outing was organised when Mrs Moya Quinlan, then President of the Law Society, graciously offered to present a perpetual trophy to the ladies. Players travelled from Kilkenny, Dublin, Tullamore and Portlaoise to compete for the prized trophy and for the miscellaneous hampers for the runners up. We were delighted by the number of guests who participated and they brought with them a heartening relief from "requisitions on title" and "Motions for Judgement". After we had quenched the flames from the burning plum pudding, Mrs. Quinlan presented the Quinlan Perpetual Cup to Elaine Anthony (Terence Doyle & Co., Dublin) who brought in a tremendous score of 51 nett. Other prize winners were:— 2nd nett: Mary Molloy, Kilkenny. Best gross: Maeve Laningan, Kilkenny. Visitors: 1st nett: Mrs. Jean Crawford. Best gross: Mrs. Monica Culliton. The 1982 Committee was elected and they are as follows: Captain, Mary Meagher, Portlaoise; Secretary, Elaine Anthony, Dublin; Treasurer, Maeve Lannigan, Kilkenny; Hon. Member, Mrs. Moya Quinlan. This year's outing will be held at Newland's Golf Club on Monday 26th July and those interested in participating should contact any of the members of the Committee. • 91 23rd April 1982

R. H. S. TUR