The Gazette 1978

55 / 264

GAZETTE MARCH1978
(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
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
IiickY, t i l l fee a
gj 7
w a s t e m fii
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 nwi impl.
•rr l
But what if you're not
m lucky? ,
llth.r.i<.it«iiilHM .mill
ilt.r.1. wrioii. tniurv <u<l i
vitu r .imniiu* rlw-1. .1
Unit 11. Anv tun. iUv
uf ni
\Mwli.ini. Iiw'
I'rr.nital imurv 1 wtiW
h iiitt'i*! nq . 1 iwitirq.m \
il n. uin .it£l
,i\ii|Wimt<
nit l Ihrrr 1. mi It»
It v01 nml h. 1 .1! \«kk*
IVikl.uifl tiiin \hllu«hi«
|in tin hhrrl
k&j. V m -
mi M
J s
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|
r y'^wifi?-4*
Í V r ^ f o ^ 7
ii.tirl-i
< *»»•- 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
36