Dear Editor,
In your edition on Sunday, July 4, 2013, you published an article under the heading "Outdated laws anger Future Services". The article referred to a news release issued by a company which styles itself a "legal funding company". You quoted the press release as making the following statements:
- Attorneys are not able to advertise their fees;
- Attorneys are not able to advertise other pertinent information regarding their experience and years in practice;
- Attorneys are unable to advertise their services;
- Attorneys are not allowed to advertise that they offer contingency fees arrangements; and
- Attorneys are not allowed to advertise that they provide complimentary consultations.
All these statements are untrue. The regulations which govern the conduct of attorneys do not prevent attorneys from advertising any of the services that they offer and many attorneys do so in various ways. There is therefore no issue about this.
What the regulations do forbid is the sharing of legal fees between an attorney and a person or entity who is not licensed to practice law, including a "legal funding company".
Also, it is illegal for a person or entity including a "legal funding company" who is not licensed to practice law, to offer legal services, falsely represent or give the impression that they are licensed to practice law or accept a client's funds.
The press release quotes selectively from the US Supreme Court decision in Bates v Arizona. Almost 40 years ago, the State Bar of Arizona forbade lawyers in that state from advertising their services. The US Supreme Court ruled that this was unconstitutional. The press release omitted to state that the Supreme Court also ruled that states were permitted to ban misleading advertising and to impose other reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of lawyer advertising.
The General Legal Council recognises that, in some respects, the regulations governing advertising by lawyers may be outdated and earlier this year started a process to consider amending them. Some restrictions are plainly necessary however, in the public interest.
B St Michael Hylton
Chairman
General Legal Council
Kingston
Here's what legal for lawyers -- GLC
-->
In your edition on Sunday, July 4, 2013, you published an article under the heading "Outdated laws anger Future Services". The article referred to a news release issued by a company which styles itself a "legal funding company". You quoted the press release as making the following statements:
- Attorneys are not able to advertise their fees;
- Attorneys are not able to advertise other pertinent information regarding their experience and years in practice;
- Attorneys are unable to advertise their services;
- Attorneys are not allowed to advertise that they offer contingency fees arrangements; and
- Attorneys are not allowed to advertise that they provide complimentary consultations.
All these statements are untrue. The regulations which govern the conduct of attorneys do not prevent attorneys from advertising any of the services that they offer and many attorneys do so in various ways. There is therefore no issue about this.
What the regulations do forbid is the sharing of legal fees between an attorney and a person or entity who is not licensed to practice law, including a "legal funding company".
Also, it is illegal for a person or entity including a "legal funding company" who is not licensed to practice law, to offer legal services, falsely represent or give the impression that they are licensed to practice law or accept a client's funds.
The press release quotes selectively from the US Supreme Court decision in Bates v Arizona. Almost 40 years ago, the State Bar of Arizona forbade lawyers in that state from advertising their services. The US Supreme Court ruled that this was unconstitutional. The press release omitted to state that the Supreme Court also ruled that states were permitted to ban misleading advertising and to impose other reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of lawyer advertising.
The General Legal Council recognises that, in some respects, the regulations governing advertising by lawyers may be outdated and earlier this year started a process to consider amending them. Some restrictions are plainly necessary however, in the public interest.
B St Michael Hylton
Chairman
General Legal Council
Kingston
Here's what legal for lawyers -- GLC
-->