The Gazette 1994

GAZETTE

MAY 1994

V I

E W P 0 I N T

Fee Adver t i s i ng - T ime for a Re- think

As we go to press, the Committee Stage of the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill, 1994 has commenced and battle lines have already been drawn on a number of key provisions of the Bill. Solicitors throughout the country will be pleased that the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Mr. Willie O'Dea TD, announced at Second Stage that he will be removing those sections of the Bill that would have permitted banks and other financial institutions to provide probate and conveyancing services. The Government has obviously had a change of heart on this particular issue which is welcomed. We would hope that the Government will, likewise, have a change of heart in relation to one or two other provisions of this Bill. Apart from the provision which would impose an obligation on the Law Society to fund the Office of the Ombudsman (which has been consistently objected to by the Society and, we should point out, by many other commentators recently who see it as a provision that undermines the independence of the Ombudsman) a provision which has aroused sustained and vociferous opposition from solicitors is that which would preclude the Society from prohibiting the advertising of fees by solicitors - in other words allow fee advertising. Up to now, despite intense opposition from the profession, the Government has held the line and Deputy O'Dea, at Second Stage, attempted to defend fee advertising as being in the public interest. We would earnestly suggest that he should think again on this matter. It is, perhaps, ironic that one of the most outspoken critics of this provision at the Second Stage was none other than Deputy Desmond O'Malley , who, in the course of his contribution, said the following:

"Some years ago I would have greatly welcomed that, but from my experience of some of the advertising since 1988 it would be very dangerous to allow fee advertising. The Minister and the Government should think about this again before Committee Stage." The Deputy went on to point out that, in his view, to allow fee advertising would be wrong and contrary to the public interest. This 'Damascus-like' conversion, late and all as it is, is greatly to be welcomed and the Government should take special heed of what Deputy O'Malley has said. He was, after all, the Minister who, before his departure from Government, was responsible for competition policy in this country and it was he, more than anybody else, who 'unleashed the dogs' of competition on the legal profession. Can anybody seriously doubt the point that Deputy O'Malley has so forcefully made? Does the Minister really believe, at this stage, that the public interest will be served by allowing solicitors to quote publicly in advertisements fees for the provision of legal services? Surely it is clear that the most likely outcome of this is that the public will be at risk of being misled by a minority of solicitors who will advertise low-cost legal services solely to attract clients and will short- cut on quality. The market for legal services is very different to that which prevails in relation to ordinary commercial goods where the buyer can use his own judgement to determine the quality of the article being offered in advance of committing himself to a purchase. Most consumers of legal services are not in a position to do this. They are simply not in a position to assess in advance the quality of the service being offered by the solicitor. When it

comes, therefore, to comparing prices as between solicitors, consumers lack a fundamental and vital ingredient to enable them to make an informed choice. They simply cannot compare the quality of service being offered by different solicitors so as to make a judgement as to which offer is best. It is for that reason primarily that fee advertising by solicitors is objectionable. Nobody can reasonably object to the concept of price competition. There is ample evidence that competition is a healthy practice and is ultimately to the benefit of consumers. However, as we have said, the market for legal services is a complex one and does not readily lend itself to analysis on the basis of ordinary competition rules. We await with interest the debate on this issue at Committee Stage. A number of opposition deputies have put down amendments to delete this provision from the Bill. The Minister will clearly have to think very hard about this matter. Simply reiterating the philosophy of The Fair Trade Commission, as set out in its 1990 report, will not satisfy anyone. The Minister must address the points now being made. He should ponder hard on the reasons that brought about the 'O'Malley conversion'. We sincerely hope that he will. •

Cot Deaths Kills Perfictly Healthy Ha hies

II your elienl wishes to make a w i ll in favour of Cot Death Research Telephone 8747007 ( 24 Hour Help Line)

129