The Gazette 1988

APRIL 1 9 88

GAZETTE

(c) Overheads increased The financial overheads involved in running a solicitors office would be increased. They stated that in these recessionary times solicitors had suffered a downturn in business with resulting reduction in income but not a corresponding reduction in overheads. They stated that the introduction of advertising would require all solicitors to set aside vast budgets for advertising. This the profession could not afford. There is absolutely no doubt that the implications and effects of ad- vertising would be completely different in the city and the country. There is a division, but it need not be divisive. A glossy brochure setting out the services offered by a practice would have a completely different impact in Drimnagh, Dublin than in Bunbeg, Co. Donegal. The members who supported the introduction of advertising stated that it was in the interest of the public that it should be aware of the d i f f e r ent se r v i ces t hat were available to them in their localities. In June 1987 the Consumer Choice magazine (Irish equivalent of Which?) published an article on legal advertising. They carried out a survey in March 1987 based on telephone enquiries to a total of 61 solicitors' practices chosen at random in Wexford, Cork, Galway and Dublin. They concluded that advertising would benefit consumers, to quote: "Advertising would be good for consumers. It would tell you what services are available and the respective charges . . . And it should encourage more competition and efficiency. In 1982 the Restrictive Practices Commi ss i on r ecommended that the ban on advertising by solicitors should be lifted. The recommendation should be im- plemented by the government without any further delay." The one fact that did emerge from the debate in November 1986 was that the introduction of advertising was inevitable. Furthermore a large percentage of solicitors who voted against change did so, not because they disagreed wi th the new rules out but because the regulations did not contain any practical means of policing and enforcement. They were particularly aggrieved that there was no clear penalty for those solicitors who would act in breach of the new rules. This reservation still exists.

Solicitors Act which would include price advertising and " t ou t i ng" for business. If the aforementioned solicitors were to refer the matter to Court, the action would be extremely divisive for the profession; however the public and the media would love the controversy, and no doubt the issue would make the headlines for the wrong reasons. Furthermore if the Court was to uphold the right to advertise then membe rs wou ld be a l l owed advertise without restriction and thus price advertising and touting would be outside our control. If you do not agree wi th this conclusion then read the decision in Bates -v- State Bar of Arizona where the Supreme Court in upholding Mr. Bates constitutional right to ad- vertise, removed the other restric- tions on advertising in Arizona and the rest of the United States of America. The legal profession cannot hold back the tide of change. In every action a solicitor takes, whether it be his performance in the local court (of far greater significance in c oun t ry p r ac t i ce t han c i ty practice), being a member of the local Lions Club, Vincent de Paul, golf club, football club or local pub, he is marketing himself as a solicitor and ultimately advertising his practice. The only method of obtaining, holding and developing business is by marketing one's services. If you support or oppose these views please respond in the next issue of the Gazette so that your views will be considered and the debate will commence. JOHN M. BOURKE V I EWPO I NT icontd. from page 59.) The publication of a book on Quantum of Damages while welcome, will merely mean a wider dissemination of information already available to insurers, Counsel and solicitors engaged in personal injury cases, and which is the key to the huge percentage of claims which are currently settled without a court hearing. It is not at all clear how helpful such a book will be in the small minority of cases which have to be tried because their facts do not permit of simple assessments of damages. Pre-trial procedures are to be introduced — another seemingly good idea but not without its drawbacks. In other countries they have led to great delays in the processing of claims. It is to be hoped that all these proposals will be examined carefully with a view to ensuring that any changes are made with the aim of achieving speedy, effective and fair compensation for the unfortunate victims. •

The Law Society has no plans to reintroduce the draft regulations. It is anxious that the regulations will be implemented but feels that it is bound by the decision of the meeting in November 1986. If, as the writer believes, the introduction of advertising is inevitable then it is time that we reopened the debate and started to push for limited deregulation. The following reasons are -cited in support: A. The Restrictive Practices Com- mission recommended in 1982 that the restriction on adver- tising should be removed. B. In 1987 the Restrictive Prac- tices Commission recommend- ed on accountants that their present limited advertising should be extended to include 'price advertising' and 'open touting' for business. C. It is understood that the Re- strictive Practices Commission is about to report on solicitors and that it will recommend similar rules for the legal profession. D. The government has for some time been drafting legislation to amend the Solicitors Act. It is understood that the draft bill will incorporate the recommen- dations of the Restrictive Prac- tices Commission. E. The public are becoming more aware of the advantages of advertising for solicitors as evid- enced by the Consumer Associ- ation report. Added to this is the increasing awareness of the public of the advantages in removing the conveyancing monopoly. F. A group of solicitors favouring advertising submitted a case to counsel, an eminent Constitu- tional Lawyer who advised them in a lengthy opinion that the present restriction on ad- vertising constituted, in his opinion, a breach of their cons- titutional rights to freedom of expression. The so l i c i t o rs who t ook Counsel's opinion did so because they considered that the future development of their practices would be adversly affected by the decision in November 1986 and because they preferred to control the future development of their pro- f ess i on rather t han have it controlled by some outside body such as the Oireachtas. The government, because of its lack of a majority in the Dail, will not wish to introduce contentious legislation during its term of office, may well favour the introduction of a new

62