Helpful if lawyers are allowed to advertise

THE EDITOR: The Law Association of TT (LATT) has been receiving a lot of flak for its recent statement threatening lawyers who do anything that can be construed as advertising.

LATT has argued that advertising is a breach of the code of ethics. Yet it is quite obvious that the association’s real concern is money, not principle.

The statement was reportedly a response to one attorney announcing the introduction of an app that would let people draw up their own wills and other simple legal documents. It will be interesting to see how LATT proves that this is a form of advertising since, presumably, the association will need to cite specific instances to make its case.

It will also be interesting to see how or if LATT will argue that newspaper columns such as those written by senior counsel Martin Daly and family lawyer Pavitra Ramharack are not a form of marketing.

The fact is, allowing lawyers to advertise will help both citizens and lawyers. Economists hold that advertising reduces transaction costs by making it easier for consumers to find and choose a product or service. Advertising also helps raise quality since, by providing information about their services, lawyers are now more obliged to deliver or else suffer brand damage.

LATT prefers to ban advertising because this provides a pecuniary advantage to established attorneys and firms. In this regard, it should also be noted that the very fact that attorneys must be licensed to practise is also what economists call a “barrier to entry,” whose main function is to keep legal fees high.

The argument that certification guarantees professional standards is not only contradicted by reality but based on the false premise that incompetent legal practitioners cannot be effectively weeded out by market forces.

Arguably, if our system allowed “bush lawyers,” legal practice would become more efficient as practitioners would be competing to provide the best service at the lowest possible prices.

ELTON SINGH

Couva